KinkForAll and Diverse Community Outreach
Heliotrope
I wanted to start up a conversation about what communities are
currently represented in the people interested in and active with
KinkForAll, and how we can make sure that these communities are as
diverse as possible. This may seem a bit off point in the middle of
our mad-dash scramble to find a new home for KFABos, but as we look to
a new venue, I think now is a better time than ever to make sure we
can include a wide variety of folks.
A lot of the earliest support for KinkForAll seems to me to have come
from the BDSM communities, in NYC and in Boston, specifically. It's
wonderful to have such a strong and coherent group working on the
project, to me especially wonderful because as a member of the BDSM
community, I have long been unhappy about the difficulty to come from
within that group and speak to people outside of it.
Recently, in the surge of e-mails around where to hold KFABos, a lot
of people have spoken up who seem to be coming from sex-positive
academic communities, and I would love to hear more from them -- In
fact, I'd love just to get a shout out from the people on this list of
what communities they identify themselves as being a part of, or in
contact with.
I would also love to hear who is doing what, off-list, to get in touch
with different sets of people. Personally, I try to talk up the KFA
idea and upcoming events, wherever I go, to whomever I speak to -
including my parents, to whom I am not out about my interest in BDSM.
Specifically, I have a friend group based in Boston that are mostly
students in various schools at Harvard, many of whom would not
actively think too much about sex if I didn't keep yarping at them
about it. But they are all open minded, and more than willing to come
to this KinkForAll thing I keep talking up to them.
I want to make sure that when they do, they feel comfortable and
welcomed. I attended the social meeting held last Thursday, September
3rd, and realized that, myself included, the only people present at
the event were representative of the BDSM community. A person from a
different background would have felt uncomfortable there, I think,
just by virtue of being the only odd-one-out, no matter how open and
welcoming the group had been. Indeed, I felt a little uncomfortable
just because I was bringing up the possibility of contacting one of my
non-BDSM Harvard student friends to see if she could help us host the
event; there seemed to be some confusion as to why she would want to.
But she does want to! Because KinkForAll is a great event for
everybody, from people who are just beginning to think about bringing
a vibrator into the bedroom to people who want to discuss why they
love bondage, or how to bring food into the bedroom safely, or how
fanfiction affects the sexuality of young women on the internet, or
when people should be allowed to decide to have gender confirming
surgery. Anybody open and willing to help is wanted, and I think
everybody agrees on that. So how can we best make sure that EVERYONE
open and willing to help knows about the event, and can come and
represent their own beautiful, glorious, unique point of view on sex,
and their own specific, glorious, not-necessarily-BDSM-centric Kinks?
Thanks to everybody for reading and thinking
And again and again to everybody pouring energy into finding KFABos a
new home,
Still hoping to see you all Saturday,
Emma
Philip
Emma brings up an excellent point. I seem to remember that maymay
wrote an article about how "kink is not bdsm." One of the things I
would be looking forward to at the next KFABos is to get a sense of
the wider kink community. I get glimpses of other communities at
things like the Flea, but rarely get to hear what's going on
elsewhere, and some communities are completely invisible to me.
I'll be at Bound in Boston (rope is my "home" community), so I'll be
missing this inaugural KFABos, but I'm looking forward to hearing and
reading about what happens.
iron rose
The other half of this is to target our ads and literature for inclusiveness. One thing that helps is having a prominent diversity statement. The main point of a diversity statement is to explicitly welcome those minorities who are not usually by-default welcomed. One example is: http://www.dreamwidth.org/legal/diversity (You can find more by googling.)
We could also target the ads to whatever particular group you are interested in attracting - this would mean having many different versions of the ads or flyers, so that they can speak to different sorts of people. As an example of what I mean, if you want to target people whose primary language is spanish, you'd write a spanish ad. What about something simple though: flyers that say something like:
"Have something to say about POLYAMORY? KinkForAll [location/time]"
"Have something to say about FANFICTION? KinkForAll [location/time]"
That seems almost too targeted though. Maybe just ads that mix and match a whole bunch of things:
"Have something to say about POLYAMORY? FAN FICTION? SEX IN THE FUTURE? COOKIES? KinkForAll [location/time]"
I think making sure our language is welcoming & inclusive, combined with flyering and advertising *outside* our communities (geographically) will help with the diversity thing. In the emails I've been writing I try to list off a whole bunch of different identities/topics in the first sentence, to make people who may fit into any or all of them feel like there is a place for them in KfA.
-ironrose
bostonpup
I like a lot of the KFA ads that were done for New York (stick figures! whipping each other!) but given that we have only had a small selection of Boston ads distributed (Zac's and DJPets) I'm really pleased that both are extremely inclusive. If it weren't for the word "kink" in the event, I doubt most people would look at them and think BDSM or any one thing in particular. (We obviously mean kink in a more broadly encompassing way but of course most people very understandably think "whips and chains"). It's hard without having a confirmed venue for the moment, but its worth throwing out as a reminder that anyone can make an ad, reach out to a community, poster away :-) Getting the word out makes sure we get as much diversity as possible.
Joshua Pearce
any food whatsoever for any event that they aren't hired to cater. Of
course personal food is fine and there is a cafeteria as well. Just so
you know any creative endeavors and promises will have to be non-food
related unless we pay for them to cater cookies. ( I know its lame,
but I wanted to get that out there before any good brainstorming
started). - 9
Heliotrope
maymay
One thing that helps is having a prominent diversity statement. The main point of a diversity statement is to explicitly welcome those minorities who are not usually by-default welcomed. One example is: http://www.dreamwidth.org/legal/diversity (You can find more by googling.)
"Have something to say about POLYAMORY? KinkForAll [location/time]"
"Have something to say about FANFICTION? KinkForAll [location/time]"
That seems almost too targeted though.
Little Black Dress
Looking at the kinkforall.com website, I rather like the text: "A serendipitous, ad-hoc unconference about the intersection of sexuality with the rest of life." A lot. It makes me think of a Venn diagram with one circle saying "sexuality", another saying "life" and the intersection saying "KinkForAll". Or just focusing on the unconference aspect of it. "There are no spectators, only participants." Those are what stood out for me and made me interested in KFA. It also spoke to me by not being specific (and also made it less threatening to some degree). Make it feel like the person attending has something potentially interesting to say themselves. A person who helps out a little and attends presentations now will hopefully become a presenter later, especially when they learn that KFA is a place where *every* individual's experience/story is relevant.
Ai
http://lilblackdress.livejournal.com/
Molly Crucible
As far as the name goes, I would caution you to be careful whom you're speaking for. I'm not sure that people outside of the BDSM scene necessarily associate the word "Kink" with BDSM. In fact, from the discussions I've been having, I'm getting the opposite view: people who are into BDSM believe the word applies solely to them, whereas others give it a much broader meaning, or simply don't assign it a particular meaning at all. I know that none of my "vanilla" friends have been turned off or driven away by the word, and in fact none of them have ever questioned whether the event might be all about "whips and chains," as it were.
Stacy Cat
(Image attached if you can see attachments).
maymay
I'm only responding to a few points in this email but I'm quoting lots
of people since this thread has been so awesome. That's why this email
looks long at first brush. :)
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 PM, bostonpup wrote:
> I like a lot of the KFA ads that were done for New York (stick
> figures! whipping each other!)
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:52 AM, Heliotrope wrote:
> Mike: I like a lot of the flyers that have been put together for the
> various KFAs that have and will happen, as well, but I have to own
> up to specifically not liking the stick-figures-whipping-each-other
> one. Given that even so far as there are a large number of people
> from the BDSM community involved in KFA the events are still always
> completely non-play, the depiction of whipping is simply not an
> accurate representation of the event.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm actually really glad I never saw the stick
figures whipping one another image used in conjunction with a
KinkForAll promotion because it's basically false advertisement, and
therefore inappropriate. See also the FrequentlyAskedQuestions, which
actively discourages demos and play:
Quoted here: "No. KinkForAll is not a play event. Period."
http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#Whyarepresentationslotslimitedto20minutes
Quoted here: "strictly enforcing a 20 minute time limit on
presentations discourages people from getting into the mindset that
extended demos are possible. [Demo] activities are simply too involved
to squeeze into twenty minutes with a room full of participants."
On Sep 8, 2009, at 11:15 PM, bostonpup wrote:
>> If it weren't for the word "kink" in the event, I doubt most people
>> would look at them and think BDSM or any one thing in particular.
>> (We obviously mean kink in a more broadly encompassing way but of
>> course most people very understandably think "whips and chains").
On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:52 AM, Molly Crucible wrote:
> when I polled a bunch of my vanilla friends, they all associated
> kink with BDSM. Perhaps there is a fascinating linguistic study in
> here. Clearly, some but not all people think kink is BDSM, and I
> think it's important to be aware of that when discussing outreach.
On Sep 9, 2009, at 12:52 AM, Heliotrope wrote:
> As far as the name goes, I would caution you to be careful whom
> you're speaking for. I'm not sure that people outside of the BDSM
> scene necessarily associate the word "Kink" with BDSM.
I strongly agree, Emma.
Mike, Molly, my experiences don't match yours. Most people whom have
no prior engagement with any sexuality community or organization, sex-
positive movement or other latent, preexisting interest in BDSM tend
not to associate "kink" with "whips and chains". If I may pose a
question to the two of you: which "sexuality community" do you most
personally identify with?
I believe that the kink=BDSM misconception is, sadly, an association
that is often made for people in much the same way as forced-choice
questions[0] often appear in surveys and sully the possibility of an
unbiased answer[1].
I absolutely agree that it's important to be aware of any potential
miscommunication while discussing outreach, and as Emma's original
email in this thread points out, KinkForAll is experiencing a heavy
slant toward one particular subgroup of sexuality right now. In fact,
it always has, since when Sara and I originally promoted the idea back
in February, we had most influence in only this one group. A shame.
That's why I'm so happy to see this discussion going on right now—it's
very important.
On Sep 9, 2009, at 1:36 AM, Little Black Dress wrote:
> Speaking of promotions/advertising/getting people interested...
>
> Looking at the kinkforall.com website, I rather like the text: "A
> serendipitous, ad-hoc unconference about the intersection of
> sexuality with the rest of life." A lot. […] It also spoke to me by
> not being specific (and also made it less threatening to some degree).
Ai, I couldn't agree with you more. As many of you are aware, the
majority of the text on the web site is very succinct, and I have
tried hard to refine it to ensure that it stays very short, to-the-
point, and makes no mention of specific topical suggestions. That was
on purpose, and I'm glad to hear that the result for you, Ai, was
precisely what I intended it to be.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/213147/forced-choice-question
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsative#Psychology
Trish Kitten
> 3rd, and realized that, myself included, the only people present at
> the event were representative of the BDSM community.
Cool, I'm representative of the BDSM community now! :)
More seriously, it would be unfair to say I'm not part of that
community at all, but it's definitely not my primary identifier or
peer group, even in terms of alternate sexuality and sexual
expression; that would more be queer/genderqueer probably, or maybe
furry. While I think it is a telling and important issue that everyone
present was apparently involved in BDSM, I don't think the fact that I
own a pair of wrist cuffs means I no longer represent my other
communities, or might not have felt uncomfortable. I'm also curious
how you _knew_ that everyone present represented the BDSM community; I
certainly didn't.
Trish
Trish Kitten
> Mike, Molly, my experiences don't match yours. Most people whom have
> no prior engagement with any sexuality community or organization, sex-
> positive movement or other latent, preexisting interest in BDSM tend
> not to associate "kink" with "whips and chains". If I may pose a
> question to the two of you: which "sexuality community" do you most
> personally identify with?
The way you minimize other people's experiences and data collection
every time they bring this up is, frankly, kinda offensive. Are you
implying that other people aren't "outsiders" enough to collect
"accurate" data here? Also, are we actually trying to do outreach to
people with "no prior engagement with any sexuality community or
organization?" Everything I've read here, and everything I've done,
has been specifically doing outreach to people in _other sexuality
communities and organizations_, not random people on the street. Maybe
that's not what your model is, but as far as I can tell, it's what
we're doing... and so even if what you're saying here about tabula
rasa potential attendees is true, I'm not confident it's useful.
> I believe that the kink=BDSM misconception is, sadly, an association
> that is often made for people in much the same way as forced-choice
> questions[0] often appear in surveys and sully the possibility of an
> unbiased answer[1].
This is probably (at least somewhat) true! Of course, the first google
hit for "kink" is kink.com which has "BDSM" in the blue internal
search results. For some people, their first association with "kink"
is hair. We're not HairForAll either. It's a word in flux and with
multiple meanings, and in some ways that gives the name a lot of
power, and in other ways it makes the name problematic. That's
probably going to happen with most language surrounding sexuality; I'm
not saying we should change the name, at least in part because I think
anything we might change the name to would have similar issues.
> I absolutely agree that it's important to be aware of any potential
> miscommunication while discussing outreach, and as Emma's original
> email in this thread points out, KinkForAll is experiencing a heavy
> slant toward one particular subgroup of sexuality right now.
And when people suggest that this slant might intersect with the event
naming and you make that sound like we have a personal problem, you're
not actually encouraging open conversation about the topic. Is
"kink=BDSM" really a misconception if that's how most of the attendees
and people being recruited to attend are using the word? I mean, in
some ways, you're accusing people of using a "misconception" to label
themselves and their activities, and stepping on their identities, in
the way you're having this argument. Say there is more than one
meaning, sure. Say that it's a word in flux. But please don't say "Oh
the way you identify yourself is a misconception" or something forced
on us from the outside. We all get enough of that elsewhere.
Trish
iron rose
Let's stop arguing about whether or not "kink" has the connotation of "bdsm". At least everyone seems to agree that *some* people have this connotation. For *anyone* who find the word "kink" to be non-general, whether it's because they're into bdsm or not, this will be something we need to _overcome_ in our language and our advertising. The only point we seem to disagree on is *who* has this connotation. We don't need to agree on that, if we agree that people with the misconception that kinkforall = bdsm un-conference should be corrected.
Yes, it will take extra effort to explain that to someone who has the connotation of kink = bdsm. So, our energies are better suited to figuring out *how* to do that. The diagram StacyCat drew is a great example of something that can easily combat this connotation. (Great diagram, by the way.) We may want to be more explicit in listing a wide range of topics that are not just BDSM, in exactly the same way that a community which is seen as default-white may need a diversity statement (and more) to explicitly welcome minority groups, in order to combat peoples' misconceptions.
I would also like to say that I'm into bdsm. I'm also queer and poly, and a whole lot more than just those labels. The current argument centering around what "bdsm people think vs what vanilla people think" makes me feel *very* targeted for my interest in bdsm. If I weren't into bdsm I would be a somewhat different person, but that doesn't mean that my interest in bdsm *defines* who I am. "What BDSM people think" is just as pointless as saying "What white people think". I'm a lot more than just that. Let's stop arguing in generalities like that and get back to the point, which is how to make KfA more inclusive.
So Kink = bdsm for some people. How do we overcome this?
-ironrose
Syd Gottfried
Sara Eileen
In my experience, labels and words are some of the most explosive topics discussed - within *every* community I've been a part of. Rather than try and bring everyone interested in KFA to the same definition of the words, why not acknowledge and encourage the questions in our advertising?
For example:
"Kink. Sex. Unconference. What do these words mean to you?"
Cheers,
Sara Eileen
Heliotrope
Thank you SO much for this e-mail. You're right: I knew a most of the
faces at the gathering, and was introduced to a few more through
BDSMcentric means (fetlife, etc.), and I selected my data and
extrapolated from there. Thank you for letting me, and the list, know
that this is not how you primarily identify, and I apologize for
making assumptions. My view of the meeting was biased from where I
myself stand, and a few parts of the communication. Thank you for
speaking up about where you're coming from and your own interest in
the event - that's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to get going
with this thread. So thanks again for speaking up and setting me
straight.
Best,
Emma
maymay
> are we actually trying to do outreach to
> people with "no prior engagement with any sexuality community or
> organization?"
Yes, absolutely! Or at least, I certainly am, and I certainly hope
others are, too, since doing outreach to people with no prior
engagement with any sexuality community or organization isn't just a
nice-to-have, it was one of the motivations for KinkForAll's existence
in the first place[0][1]. KinkForAll was born, in my mind, out of a
need to help everyone "mix our sexuality lives with our non-sexuality
lives" and help people already in sexuality communities break out of
the "little ghettos of sexuality" that we're currently stuck in[2].
That's why I feel any focus on existing sexuality-specific communities
is not much better than a focus on any one specific sexuality
subgrouping itself.
Personally, I'll consider KinkForAll successful when it obsoletes
itself; when the world changes to a degree that the entire notion of a
"sexuality community" is silly, because the idea of cordoning off
sexuality in any single place as if it doesn't impact the way that we
live, work, and interact, is understood to be unrealistic, needlessly
restrictive, and actively damaging both to societal structures as a
whole and an individual's well-being. So yes, I *absolutely* hope we
are reaching out to people without any prior engagement with a
sexuality community!
Take a look at the list of "Who" on the KinkForAll page[3], quoted here:
> Everyone. No, really.
>
> KinkForAll is a free event open to the public featuring
> conversations about sexuality. If you are comfortable (or want to
> feel comfortable) being yourself in a public space, then this event
> is for you.
>
> KinkForAll’s theme is the convergence of sexuality and the rest of
> life, and participants from an astounding range of disciplines and
> interests come together to discuss the intersection of sexuality
> with their own passions at local events. People who have
> participated in KinkForAll events in the past have included folks of
> all descriptions including, but not limited to:
>
> • activist,
> • arts,
> • asexual,
> • BDSM,
> • bisexual,
> • feminist,
> • gay,
> • hacker,
> • legal industry,
> • lesbian,
> • maker/DIY,
> • queer,
> • raw foods,
> • sex magic,
> • sex worker,
> • sex-positive,
> • swinger,
> • tantra,
> • technology industry,
> • trans,
> • vegetarian,
> • and many others.
The list above was originally sourced from a document "Chris !"
created and is already obviously slanted toward sex-specific
communities, which in itself is a bias I am uncomfortable with. I
think this is worth pointing out in a discussion of diversity. How can
we improve that page and/or this list to more accurately reflect the
goal of involving everyone, regardless of their level of sexuality
awareness?
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:38 AM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> I mean, we're using the word "kink" as sort of a catch-all, right?
> So why don't we just make a list, or a brief description of
> everything that we are using the word to represent (namely alternate
> sexualities and lifestyles of all stripes, right?). BDSM would be
> included in the description, but it wouldn't be the only descriptor
> by far. That way, even if some people associate the word "kink"
> with "bdsm" they'll know that that isn't the way we are using the
> word, and better understand the concept of kinkforall in general.
Syd, "Chris !" did create a list like this. (See above.) One reason I
don't like this list very much is, as I stated in an earlier post to
this thread: "I suspect that specific 'targeting' of topics in this
way will actually work against us: rather than invite diversity, such
topical [texts] actually reveal our own biases."[4] Another reason I
don't like it is because it's long. In programmer-speak, it's an O(n)
operation[5], which is to say that the list needs to be expanded for
each group or group descriptor that we'd like to add, which becomes
unwieldy very quickly. I don't want any list or page to end up looking
like the Yay! Genderform page[6].
That being said, Chris's list is still up on the web site because I
don't have a better suggestion, and it's not inaccurate. I acknowledge
that sometimes the least-bad option (topical lists, IMHO) may be the
best choice.
On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Trish Kitten wrote:
> Everything I've read here, and everything I've done,
> has been specifically doing outreach to people in _other sexuality
> communities and organizations_, not random people on the street. Maybe
> that's not what your model is, but as far as I can tell, it's what
> we're doing... and so even if what you're saying here about tabula
> rasa potential attendees is true, I'm not confident it's useful.
I think it's great that you're reaching out to other people in other
sexuality communities in Boston. Reaching out to other people who are
not part of sexuality communities is at least equally important as
well. Who do you think are the people who that will need the most
support and encouragement to come to a KinkForAll event? Those are the
people I think we should be talking a lot about in a discussion about
diversity. I think many of these people will have no prior engagement
with a sexuality community.
Moreover, beyond people without active involvement in a sexuality
community, let's also remember that other important groups of people
include professions such as therapists, legal counselors, artists,
technologists, and doctors, to name a few. I'm talking about people
who make a living in the medical profession who are willing to discuss
the medical profession through the lens of alternative sexuality.
That's the sort of angle that encouraged presentations such as Stacy's
excellent "STIs and Stigma Reduction", and I hope to see more of such
things.
To summarize: This is not a conference about sex for the purpose of
sex, it's a conference about the world, and how people live in it,
through the lens of sexuality.
> This is probably (at least somewhat) true! Of course, the first google
> hit for "kink" is kink.com which has "BDSM" in the blue internal
> search results.
Yeah, I know…and how annoyed do you think I am at Kink.com for
that? :) So much![7]
> For some people, their first association with "kink"
> is hair. We're not HairForAll either. It's a word in flux and with
> multiple meanings, and in some ways that gives the name a lot of
> power, and in other ways it makes the name problematic. That's
> probably going to happen with most language surrounding sexuality; I'm
> not saying we should change the name, at least in part because I think
> anything we might change the name to would have similar issues.
Strongly agreed. You are spot on with this. The thing I remember Sara
and I spending the most time with in Sydney, when we came up with this
idea, was the name, and we threw out tons of ideas at one another and
nothing stuck. Every word we used had problems. Ultimately, we settled
on KinkForAll because kink does have an ambiguity that gives it power.
Plus, we liked the combination of "ForAll" since we wanted to drive
the diversity point home.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://maybemaimed.com/2008/12/18/introducing-kinkforall-a-no-limits-gender-and-sexuality-unconference/
[1] http://maybemaimed.com/2009/03/23/kinkforall-and-the-evolution-of-sexuality-communities/
[2] http://vimeo.com/3553527 <-- The first sentence of this video.
Just click play and watch.
[3] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/KinkForAll
[4] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/2ae6551aadde16ce#msg_152d0532ee59db74
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
[6] http://www.kreativekorp.com/miscpages/gender/gender.pl
[7] http://malesubmissionart.com/post/91994257/a-half-dressed-man-stares-across-a-room-at-a-woman
maymay
> Rather than try and bring everyone interested in KFA to the same
> definition of the words, why not acknowledge and encourage the
> questions in our advertising?
>
> For example:
>
> "Kink. Sex. Unconference. What do these words mean to you?"
>
> Cheers,
> Sara Eileen
Sara, if we go in that direction, I would argue for "Kink.
Unconference. Sex," since the order you suggested immediately
associates sex with kink by proximity, at least to me.
Sara Eileen
I think I might try to create a short KFA video this week, when I have a moment, incorporating some of these ideas. I'll post it when it's done, of course! Maybe this will be an interesting way to supplement the current media that's been created?
Cheers,
Sara
maymay
iron rose
-ironrose
Philip
HotShot315
Sorry to be a Johnny-come-lately to the discussion; I just found out
about this and joined the group. Anyway, this thread has been
fascinating to read.
When I read the topic line at first, I thought the thread was going to
be about racial and cultural diversity. The discussion we're having
is crucial and important, and I feel a little silly for not having
expected it. Still, it might be interesting to add the dimensions of
race and culture. I've been to perhaps 15-20 kinky events -- mostly
not in Boston -- and my experience has been that all genders are
represented, the LGBTQ community is well represented or perhaps even
overrepresented, but almost everybody in a given room is Caucasian and
grew up speaking English. I haven't been to a KFA event so I await
this weekend with anticipation, and I don't want to be seen as
complaining about any particular event. Still, I think based on my
own experience that the LGBT community (I'm bi) and the BDSM community
(I'm a switch) need to do a better job addressing cultural and racial
barriers. I suspect the same is true for the kink community in the
broad sense of "kink" that's been discussed on this thread, but some
of the people commenting here may know better than I. I think there
are an awful lot of people who identify with racial and cultural
minority groups who'd love to be part of an event like this if only
they knew about it and felt comfortable attending. But I don't have
any great answer, and I also don't know to what extent this applies to
KFA's situation. I'd love to listen to some other people's views who
know this community better than I do.
On Sep 9, 2:39 pm, Philip <septimus1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The video montage idea is good. I don't remember who did it (Audacia
> Ray springs to mind) did a similar 30sec PSA of sex workers.
>
>
>
>
> > What about a video montage of clips from all different kinds of
> > people, each describing what they think KinkForAll means to them and
> > what they find exciting about it? This sort of thing can be very
> > easily "crowdsourced" - ask people to send in video clips (30
> > seconds long or less) and then select a subset to send the message
> > of diversity & inclusion? The entire clip can be something like
> > 5-10 minutes long.
>
> > -ironrose
>
> > Sara, a video sounds great! Nikolas and I have also been discussing
> > the idea of something like that. Nikolas, I think we recorded that
> > discussion, didn't we?
>
> > I'm sitting on a huge amount of video from KFANYC 1 and 2 so please
> > let me know if you think any might be useful. Also, I'd love to
> > brainstorm/develop this further with you and with Nikolas, too
> > (probably in a new thread).
>
> > -M
> > (Terse email sent from my iPod.)
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joshua Pearce
I really hope you come and present on this topic on Saturday. I for
one will defiantly attend something on this topic. - 9
maymay
> Hotshot,
> I really hope you come and present on this topic on Saturday. I for
> one will defiantly attend something on this topic. - 9
Seconded. ;) Although I won't be defiant about this topic.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:38 PM, HotShot315 <hot_sh...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> When I read the topic line at first, I thought the thread was going to
> be about racial and cultural diversity. The discussion we're having
> is crucial and important, and I feel a little silly for not having
> expected it. Still, it might be interesting to add the dimensions of
> race and culture.
I wholeheartedly agree. This was a topic that Clarisse Thorn presented
on at KinkForAll New York City (the first). You might be interested to
hear the recording of her "Outreach Strategies" discussion[0], in
which she specifically addresses the fact that (and I quote) "the sex-
positive movement is overwhelmingly white and middle- to upper-middle-
class; how can we make the information we offer accessible to other
demographics?"[1]. I think this topic is very important, and Clarisse
has some very good points to make about the issues.
> I think there
> are an awful lot of people who identify with racial and cultural
> minority groups who'd love to be part of an event like this if only
> they knew about it and felt comfortable attending.
Agreed; and I'd emphasize the "and felt comfortable attending" part of
that sentence. It's very hard to be the only minority in a room,
regardless of what axis of "minority" (race, age, socioeconomic
standing, sexual orientation, gender, and so on and so forth) you're
talking about. This is precisely why I am constantly so adamant that
barriers of any kind, including "rules" such as age limits, or social
environments such as a skew toward any particular group, needs to be
avoided, even at heavy costs.
>> But I don't have
>> any great answer, and I also don't know to what extent this applies
>> to
>> KFA's situation. I'd love to listen to some other people's views who
>> know this community better than I do.
I think that KinkForAll's situation is actually not unlike the
situation faced by any other community group. What I hope is that the
people in this community will treat diversity in all its forms, as
discussed in this thread so far, with the priority it deserves. On
that note, Hotshot, if you have any ideas you'd like to draft, we
started a Diversity page[2] on our wiki that I'd love to see become a
resource for everyone in this community (and maybe even in others).
Take a look at it and tell us what you think.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://download287.mediafire.com/mvwy0bbytblg/yzmy1iztjwm/ClarisseThorn.mp3
[1] http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/my-kinkforall-nyc-presentation/
[2] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/Diversity
Joshua Pearce
While we are on the subject though, is there anything anyone can think
of (places to post, orgs to contact, etc) so we might get more ethnic
diversity for this event Saturday? - 9
bostonpup
This doesn't help much in creating non-BDSM diversity but it gets to the other kinds ;-)
HotShot315
maybe we could find time for a discussion on this as well. Maybe I'll
change my presentation idea, I don't know.
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Syd Gottfried
Joshua Pearce
it together. We could make it more of a discussion group situation
where people postulate theories, share there experiences, and discuss
ways to change this situation? Anyway, just a thought. -9
The Distinguished ...
A couple of notes:
1) I talked to several people yesterday, and they were all of the
opinion that KFABoston was canceled. (Even a certain young lady close to
a puppy's heart ...) we have to get the word out, faster, better,
farther, that it's still going on.
2) In the same vein, I was talking to both the NELA board and the folks
who run Kaleidoscope, letting them know it's happening and getting them
interested in it. If there is some electronic (aka text only) piece
that I could hand to people to spread far and wide, it would probably be
a good thing. Or should I just mail around the text of the KFABoston
page from the wiki-wiki?
On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 20:51 -0400, bostonpup wrote:
> Kaleidoscope Munch is a BDSM group in Boston that is specifically
> geared toward racial/cultural diversity, I was planning on going to
> their last munch (its on a particular Thursday each month at Copley
> Sq., I can't remember which one). Work kept me late and I missed it
> but they might have a mailing list or Fetlife group?
They have a mailing list. I can send to that, as well.
> This doesn't help much in creating non-BDSM diversity but it gets to
> the other kinds ;-)
Perhaps, we can convince the Spontaneous Celebrations folks to also send
it out to their list? I know their list is _very_ cross-cultural.
Heck, I'm on it. *grin*
In the words of my dear grandmother, Maka da Noise!
Percival
maymay
> wrote:
> Greetings, folks.
>
> A couple of notes:
>
> 1) I talked to several people yesterday, and they were all of the
> opinion that KFABoston was canceled. (Even a certain young lady
> close to
> a puppy's heart ...) we have to get the word out, faster, better,
> farther, that it's still going on.
>
> 2) In the same vein, I was talking to both the NELA board and the
> folks
> who run Kaleidoscope, letting them know it's happening and getting
> them
> interested in it. If there is some electronic (aka text only) piece
> that I could hand to people to spread far and wide, it would
> probably be
> a good thing. Or should I just mail around the text of the KFABoston
> page from the wiki-wiki?
Try printing the KinkForAll Boston Facebook event page?
http://google.com/search?q=kinkforall+Boston+Facebook
Thanks for helping to spread the word.
Cheers,
maymay
I really like your diversity idea and, taking a look at the
Presentation Topic column in our sign up page, it looks like a
diversity topic might be very appropriate. :)
On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> Or you could do both!
Yeah, you could absolutely do both. We have a whole 6 hours for this
event and there's been a lot of confusion about whether it's even
happening, so we may not have a lot of in-person participation in the
end. On the other hand, we might get lots of people to show up thanks
to all the great outreach efforts people are doing, so if we do have a
really busy event, remember the guidelines written on the Rules page
[0], particularly this one:
> At busy events, give one and only one presentation. You probably
> have mountains of valuable experience to share, but you can often do
> this just as successfully (if not more successfully) by being part
> of an engaged audience as you can by giving a presentation. Be
> generous and prepared to give others the floor, especially to
> someone who has not lead a session yet that day, or ever. ("Step up,
> and step back." That is, step up to take the floor, and step back if
> you hear only yourself speaking.)
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
HotShot315
rules, I could be an interested participant in a discussion if you
want to facilitate it. I prepared something else that might also be
fun (the $6 shackle and other fun bdsm on a budget) but frankly I
think the diversity topic is a lot more important.
On Sep 10, 8:35 pm, Joshua Pearce <ninewat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alas spell check how ye have wronged me. *definitely not defiantly
>
> While we are on the subject though, is there anything anyone can think
> of (places to post, orgs to contact, etc) so we might get more ethnic
> diversity for this event Saturday? - 9
>
>
> > On Sep 10, 2009, at 7:48 PM, Joshua Pearce wrote:
>
> >> Hotshot,
> >> I really hope you come and present on this topic on Saturday. I for
> >> one will defiantly attend something on this topic. - 9
>
> > Seconded. ;) Although I won't be defiant about this topic.
>
> > [1]http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/my-kinkforall-nyc-prese...
> > [2]http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/Diversity
Bitsy
One of my partner is my test for how does this play outside the BDSM-affiliated community, as he, despite being in a poly relationship with someone who has many friends in it, doesn't often feel comfortable there. When he came at the begining of KFA and saw the event board he all most immediately left, as all the thinks posted seemed (to him) to be on BDSM topics, Chaos in Kink, Assault, Battery and You, The $6 Shackle: How To Navigate Home Depot for Budget Bondage, etc. Not that these weren't great presentations, but I think its important to think about who they invite. Luckily, I was able to convince hime to come back latter, and presentations such as Gender Theory and Why You Should Care, Sex Worker Q&A, Diversity Discusion from the Mailing List convinced him to stay.
Or, how KFA persents itself when people do show up is importiont too!
Something to think about,
Bitsy
maymay
I think this is a fantastic point and precisely why I am so concerned
with a skew towards BDSM-centric presentations. The fact that your
partner almost immediately left is exactly the kind of thing I know
happens time and time again at almost every specific-sex-centric group
I've been a part of and it's precisely what I want KinkForAll to
avoid. It's precisely why, despite my ability to do a BDSM-centric
presentation with ease (I've got a stereotypical "class list" and have
given BDSM workshops in NYC at groups and conferences, and even some
in Sydney), I refused to do one of those at KinkForAll Boston.
I've been very loud about my dislike for this skew so I won't rant
again, but I did want to say that I appreciate your sharing this
experience with the list, Bitsy. It's important that these things are
raised here, because clearly your partner—who if he almost left at the
event itself within minutes of arriving—would not come onto this list
to explain why he did that of his own volition. We need to be careful
to avoid the tunnel-vision that would come from that. (This is the
same argument I have about why people who are put off by the notion of
recording being an opt-in thing are not going to speak up about it
here of their own volition.)
I believe one of the best ways to avoid that impulse reaction from
people is to make sure that a local KinkForAll event is not overrun
with people in one specific community and simultaneously encouraging
people to step outside their usual presentation ideas mode. Case in
point: I really don't like the sign ups on event homepages where
people just say they have a "class list" and will pick one to do at
the event. That's so missing the point. Ugh.
Syd Gottfried
Tonight, I am attending my school's GLBT group's meeting, despite not being a member of that community and only an interested party. Part of their groups goal is to bring the GLBT and straight communities together to educate one another and build tolerence and understanding, but no one who isn't gay, lesbian, bi, or trans attends their meetings because its the gay group, and its for gay people and what would a straight person do at a meeting? Wouldn't attending just make it seem like they are gay? And its likely that if word gets out that I attended a GLBT meeting, people at school will start to think that I am gay. My schools group hasn't spent enough time on outrach, and hasn't even tried to make an environment where everybody would be comfortable attending to discuss GLBT issues, despite that being one of their professed goals.
This is a trap that KFA is falling into, and one that we need to avoid at all costs. KFA is still young, and we need to try and make it as clear as possible that this really is an event for EVERYONE now, before its image as a BDSM event in cemented throught the sexual communities.
Unfortunately, I can't think of any very good way to do this. The only thing I can think of is to make it even more painfully clear (than it already is) on the KFA website, wiki, fliers, twitter, and every other place that KFA has a presence, that this is not a specifically BDSM event, that it is an event for everybody, and that everybody is welcome and encouraged to attend.
Sorry I can't think of any better idea, but as soon as I think of one, I'll post it.
Syd
James Richard Sheldon
Google "open space technology" for more info...
@james
From: Syd Gottfried <syds...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 2:54 PM
To: kinkf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [KinkForAll] Re: KinkForAll and Diverse Community Outreach
maymay
> Is anyone familiar with open space technology? In OST, participants
> set the agenda at the beginning of the day. Using a model like that
> might help to address these concerns of some attendees finding
> nothing of interest...
>
> Google "open space technology" for more info...
>
> @james
Hi James!
I'm not familiar with the specifics of open space technology, but what
you describe is already the model that KinkForAll uses. At a
KinkForAll event, an empty schedule grid is presented, and
participants fill it in with the topics they would like to discuss,
present upon, or lead sessions about. :)
I think this model has absolutely done great things for fostering
diverse topics of discussion at KinkForAll events, however the points
that Syd raises are extremely good ones and worth thinking through
very carefully. The notion of having an open schedule grid keeps the
topics *open to* diversity, but does not guarantee that the resulting
grid will be diverse, as both Syd, Bitsy, and I have noted.
With an open grid, it is a social, not technical or methodical,
challenge to bring diversity to the event. Syd's absolutely correct
when she said that "The only way…to make KFA [more diverse] is to have
more people from other communities participate and present", and that
KinkForAll needs to avoid falling into the trap of being too BDSM-
centric at all costs.
Personally, I believe that the issues of white-centricness (lack of
racial diversity), and even to some although perhaps a lesser extent
the issues of youth- and geek-centricity that KinkForAll has faced so
far is a result of the perception that it's a BDSM event. The BDSM and
Fetish community is notoriously geeky, notoriously white, notoriously
upper-middle class, and I believe it is the misconception that
Kink=BDSM=KinkForAll that is the single most important priority to
dispel. The only reason I think we've been able to successfully bring
a (comparatively) more diverse participating group on the age axis is
because KinkForAll is free, which attracts youth for socioeconomic
reasons, and it's being recorded, which discourages people who have
built a lifetime of reputation around a job, or something else that
the slightest association with sexual rights advocacy would tarnish.
So anyway, all that being said, James, do you have any suggestions of
how "open space technology" can help foster additional diversity?
I'm glad that more of us are beginning to think about these things and
are acknowledging the problems of skewing towards a BDSM-centric or
any specific sexuality focus. And so the question remains…what to do
about that?
* How do we dispel the myth that KinkForAll is a BDSM event?
* How do we encourage racial diversity?
It's worth noting we're not the only people or group dealing with
these problems, so I'm going to be doing a lot of research over the
next weeks (and probably extending to months) about what people not in
this group think about these challenges, and I would encourage
everyone else to do the same. After all, what is KinkForAll about if
it's not about pooling lots of different people's information from
different sources into one place to do something amazing? :)
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
iron rose
* How do we dispel the myth that KinkForAll is a BDSM event?
* How do we encourage racial diversity?
Two suggestions:
* Mentoring: This works for improving diversity in other organizations. I'm not sure how to apply it to us in particular, but perhaps several people could volunteer to be "Mentors", perhaps to under-represented groups. Like, for instance, I could agree to be listed as a mentor for non-monogamy. I would agree to answer any questions people might have, help with putting together and practicing presentations about non-monogamy or a specific aspect of polyamory, and generally be a friendly face to be someone you know who is "on your side" to help you feel more comfortable at the event.
One way to implement this might be to have a "Mentor" page where people would put up a little profile about their interests / background and their email address, so anyone who wants the extra help could have people to contact. Another way to implement this might be to have a few people who were willing to be in charge of matching up mentors and mentees. We would have to talk about how to be a good mentor, and what that would mean.
(We probably want to call it something else, but you get the idea. "Friendly Guides"?)
I also want to note that you do NOT need to be the same race/background/subculture as the person you are mentoring. It can be helpful, but a lot of the success of mentoring has more to do with whether you work well together personality-wise than what your personal choice of identity is.
* Some of what I'm hearing is that people look at previous presentation grid to get an idea of what to expect to see at a kfa. To avoid reinforcing previous trends, perhaps we should have like a brainstorm page, of presentations people might want to give, or of presentations people might like to see. That might help spark ideas for other people, or someone might see a presentation topic listed there and suddenly realize, "hey, I could give a presentation on that!" where before they might think that no one would be interested in what they have to see. We can also use this to avoid a particular skew, because we can always add topics on things that we haven't seen in prior kfa's to encourage a more diverse topic set.
Finally, I would like to reframe this discussion in terms of a *positive* question ("How do we increase the participation of under-represented groups") instead of continuing to frame it in terms of a *negative* question ("How can we fix the over-representation of the bdsm community"). I think we all realize that the two questions are really the same, but the latter means that a lot of our conversation on-list has focused on the bdsm community to the exclusion of any other community. If we want to welcome other communities let's at least start talking to them (well, us), as a first step. I'm part of multiple communities, as I expect many of you are as well, but on this list I feel like the focus is on how I relate to the bdsm community, rather than any of my other "labels".
In a similar way, let's not assume this group is made up of white, middle class, geeky people. This erases the existence of those of us who do not fit into that category (like me) and perpetuates the cycle. When I hear something like that I think that no one wants to hear about my experience (or maybe even my existence) as a non-white person. It tells me that the default assumption on this list is that everyone is white, middle-class, and geeky unless otherwise explicitly contradicted. This is where language is very important, and there is a distinct difference in saying "This community is white" and in saying "There are many white people in this community." The former erases my existence. The latter does not. Even so, why do we assume this list and this community is majority white, or middle class, or even geeky? On the internet, you have no idea what race or economic class I am. The Boston KinkForAll did in fact end up being full of white people, which does seem to suggest that the list is similarly biased, but we do not actually have data and the list includes much much more than just Boston.
I also see some places in the wiki where it looks like the language is addressed to the bdsm community in specific. For instance, under "what to expect", there's a link "KinkForAll is not a play event". That's a phrase that's relavent to the bdsm scene but not necessarily to all other communities. (I don't think that's relavent to the poly community, for instance...) A more general way of phrasing that might help. Perhaps "There is no sex at KinkForAll." Using language that addresses a specific community reinforces the impression that that community is the main audience.
-ironrose
PS: I feel like I need to explicitly note that I'm not attacking or addressing anyone personally. None of us are completely free from bias, no matter what our background is. What's important is how willing we are to change and improve.
maymay
when I skimmed it:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> I also see some places in the wiki where it looks like the language
> is addressed to the bdsm community in specific. For instance, under
> "what to expect", there's a link "KinkForAll is not a play event".
> That's a phrase that's relavent to the bdsm scene but not
> necessarily to all other communities. (I don't think that's
> relavent to the poly community, for instance...) A more general way
> of phrasing that might help. Perhaps "There is no sex at
> KinkForAll." Using language that addresses a specific community
> reinforces the impression that that community is the main audience.
>
> -ironrose
That's a really, *really* good point, ironrose. I do know that "play"
is used in a number of other sexuality communities, but you're right
in saying that such language presupposes a certain degree of knowledge
that's inappropriate for the context. Can you make some edits to that
page along the lines you suggested to improve the text there? If
someone contests the changes you make we can always discuss the edits
in the wiki page comments or back on this list. But I really like that
point and would love to see those changes implemented.
Syd Gottfried
But I'm thinking of it a little more like ambassadors from each specific community. I like the idea of there being a page on the KFA site that's like "KFA Ambassadors" with a small photo and profile of all the different ambassadors, which could include, among other things, the various communities that they are involved in. This would instantly show a diverse community to new comers, and help make non-BDSM people feel like they have an alli, or at least somebody who they can relate to, in the KFA community. There could also be a small blurb about how if you are interested in KFA, please don't hesitate to contact any of the ambassadors, etc etc. And then people could choose the person they would feel most comfortable talking to, who would then assure them that they are, of course, welcome and encouraged to come to a KFA.
Of course those are just some quick thoughts of mine, and of course the idea needs work, but I think its an idea with real potential! Yay for good ideas!
iron rose
I also prefer a less formal word for something as informal as KFA.
Brainstorming: "Welcomers"? "KFA Buddies"? "Guides"? "Greeters"?
-ironrose
Syd Gottfried
Syd
James Richard Sheldon
From: iron rose <ironr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:59 PM
I also prefer a less formal word for something as informal as KFA.
Brainstorming: "Welcomers"? "KFA Buddies"? "Guides"? "Greeters"?
-ironrose
Just wanted to pop in really quickly and say that I LOVE the mentor idea.
But I'm thinking of it a little more like ambassadors from each specific community. I like the idea of there being a page on the KFA site that's like "KFA Ambassadors" with a small photo and profile of all the different ambassadors, which could include, among other things, the various communities that they are involved in. This would instantly show a diverse community to new comers, and help make non-BDSM people feel like they have an alli, or at least somebody who they can relate to, in the KFA community. There could also be a small blurb about how if you are interested in KFA, please don't hesitate to contact any of the ambassadors, etc etc. And then people could choose the person they would feel most comfortable talking to, who would then assure them that they are, of course, welcome and encouraged to come to a KFA.
Of course those are just some quick thoughts of mine, and of course the idea needs work, but I think its a
maymay
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> Just wanted to pop in really quickly and say that I LOVE the mentor
> idea.
Having "mentors" or "ambassadors" is absolutely cool. Win for all, I
think. It's also a little tricky. One of the neat things about
KinkForAll is the lack of organizational hierarchy. Formal mentorship
feels very much hierarchical, and it doesn't sit well with me.
I think ironrose was on the right track when she said,
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> I'm not sure how to apply it to us in particular, but perhaps
> several people could volunteer to be "Mentors", perhaps to under-
> represented groups.
I think this is absolutely in-line with the great points that were
made at the Diversity Discussion at KFABOS, where Maja (I think?) made
said that we can all be "ambassadors of KinkForAll to our friends".
Which is why I'm concerned with the way this idea seemed to be
developing in both ironrose's and Syd's last emails:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> I could agree to be listed as a mentor for non-monogamy. I would
> agree to answer any questions people might have, help with putting
> together and practicing presentations about non-monogamy or a
> specific aspect of polyamory, and generally be a friendly face to be
> someone you know who is "on your side" to help you feel more
> comfortable at the event.
>
> One way to implement this might be to have a "Mentor" page where
> people would put up a little profile about their interests /
> background and their email address, so anyone who wants the extra
> help could have people to contact. Another way to implement this
> might be to have a few people who were willing to be in charge of
> matching up mentors and mentees. We would have to talk about how
> to be a good mentor, and what that would mean.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> I like the idea of there being a page on the KFA site that's like
> "KFA Ambassadors" with a small photo and profile of all the
> different ambassadors, which could include, among other things, the
> various communities that they are involved in.
I love the idea that people who want to be one can be an ally to
people in other communities, but I dislike the idea of singling these
people out. *Everyone* should be doing this. Rather than appoint
people to the task or have people volunteer for it "special", I think
this is something that we should build in to the community resources
like our web presence at a much more fundamental level.
Any page that lists names and faces on the KinkForAll wiki is, in my
opinion, not in keeping with the ad-hoc nature of the thing. I may
have created 99% of the content on the wiki right now, but I sure
don't want my name on the content itself, and I don't want other
people's names there either. As an analogy, and I'm sorry for its
technical nature (I can't think of something better), this is the same
principle behind why my favorite open source software projects
actively disallow author names in source code files. :)
So while the motivation for such a welcoming face is wonderful, I
don't think the implementation where individuals are singled out is
appropriate at all.
Instead, I suggest that we take the best ideas from what ironrose and
Syd have discussed and apply them to pure content only, not people. So
rather than a page with guides highlighting *people*, perhaps we could
start thinking of a page on the wiki geared towards describing various
in-roads to "the KinkForAll community" or highlight particular things
about this community (and past presentations) that might broaden the
scope for interested parties.
For example, could a page like the HowToParticipate page that we
already have[0] be expanded to include, or perhaps link to, content
that highlights a particularly diverse set of past presentation media?
Maybe constructing something like that and using that as a landing
page to point newcomers to might do a better job of highlighting our
desired diversity instead of sending them to previous schedule grid
archive pages. What do you think?
I believe focusing on content, over people, is going to be far more
successful with regards to *engaging* people. Like Syd so wonderfully
said here, I think the goal of:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:42 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> make non-BDSM people feel like they have an alli, or at least
> somebody who they can relate to, in the KFA community.
could be accomplished that way, too.
So that's some of my ideas on the notion of mentorship/ambassadoring/
etc.
Another great suggestion from iron rose was:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> * Some of what I'm hearing is that people look at previous
> presentation grid to get an idea of what to expect to see at a kfa.
> To avoid reinforcing previous trends, perhaps we should have like a
> brainstorm page, of presentations people might want to give, or of
> presentations people might like to see. That might help spark ideas
> for other people, or someone might see a presentation topic listed
> there and suddenly realize, "hey, I could give a presentation on
> that!" where before they might think that no one would be interested
> in what they have to see. We can also use this to avoid a particular
> skew, because we can always add topics on things that we haven't
> seen in prior kfa's to encourage a more diverse topic set.
This is a really strong concept, and it's a great idea. In fact, some
of this already exists in the form of the pre-registration signup table.
The rightmost column of every signup table on each wiki homepage (and
in the templates for new ones) includes a column with the heading
"Presentation Topic". As you already probably know, since there is no
set agenda at KinkForAll and since there are no prescheduled
presentations, this presentation topic column has no purpose except to
brainstorm. It does not guarantee anyone a slot to make a
presentation, and even if someone signs up with one presentation topic
they may end up doing another (like I did, actually…).
So the sole purpose of this presentation topic column is to provide a
community whiteboard, if you will, for each event where people can get
and give presentation ideas before the event itself. (This is also one
reason why it's so damn helpful to get people signing up ahead of the
event itself.[1]) So this piece of ironrose's suggestion already
exists! :D
One of the things I've been trying to do is whenever I see someone
list a topic that sounds cool to me for a KinkForAll I'm planning to
be at, I send them a personal email (since they often list some form
of contact info in one of the other columns as well), telling them how
cool I think their presentation topic is. (There have been some pretty
rad presentation topics.) Doing stuff like that is what I consider
"being a KinkForAll ambassador/mentor." I don't wait for people who
already feel uncomfortable to come to me, I go out to them. Otherwise
I'm not an ambassador or a mentor, I'm just a receptionist.
Sadly, the issue with these brainstorm topic columns is that they show
the same skew as the schedule grid archive pages, and so they have the
same problem of intimidating people who don't align with the sexuality-
specific skew they show. Therefore, I think we should really think
through suggestions of adding more of these. They serve a really
important purpose, and so do the schedule archive pages, but both of
these tools can also backfire on us.
The point I want to make very clear about all these thoughts is that
it's difficult to use any tool to showcase diversity if that diversity
isn't reflected in the people who are using the tool. Iron rose says
that "We can also use this to avoid a particular skew, because we can
always add topics on things that we haven't seen in prior kfa's to
encourage a more diverse topic set.", but I wonder: who will think up
the diverse topics? I know I can't do that all by myself, and I doubt
any group of people more closely bound by similarity rather than
diversity will successfully do so, either.
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> Finally, I would like to reframe this discussion in terms of a
> *positive* question ("How do we increase the participation of under-
> represented groups")
Yes! +1. I've been trying my best to do exactly that in the situations
where the topic is general enough to be phrased that way. Please do
call me out whenever I fail to do that. :) I appreciate having
hundreds of eyes looking at what I write and keeping me on target!
> a lot of our conversation on-list has focused on the bdsm community
That's true, but I don't think that's necessarily an inappropriate
thing for us to focus on. After all, talking about things solely in
generalities is usually more confusing than helpful. Specifics and
examples sourced from the reality that people are experiencing is an
absolutely essential component of making things better and more diverse.
> why do we assume this list and this community is majority white, or
> middle class, or even geeky? On the internet, you have no idea what
> race or economic class I am. The Boston KinkForAll did in fact end
> up being full of white people, which does seem to suggest that the
> list is similarly biased, but we do not actually have data and the
> list includes much much more than just Boston.
I think this is another argument entirely, but briefly, although I
don't think we have something like census data on the topic, we do
actually have significant data about how overwhelmingly white and
upper-middle-class the majority of public sexuality spheres are (at
least in America, which is the only country where a KinkForAll has
happened so far), and most of that data has actually come from people
like Mollena Williams in SF and Sir Guy in NYC (both African-American
people involved in public sexuality communities), with whom I've had
personal conversations in which they describe public sexuality spheres
as lacking African-American members, and whom have written and spoken
about this in public many times.
I would love to get hard numbers for this sort of thing, but that's
obviously got it's own set of challenges. :) In the absence of hard
numbers though, I think it's just as important that we don't dismiss
the statements and experiences of people like Mollena or Sir Guy.
Claiming to be significantly racially diverse when we're not is, IMHO,
worse than not even trying to be inclusive of diverse races in the
first place.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://wiki.kinkforall.org/HowToParticipate
[1] http://wiki.kinkforall.org/GuideToPre-eventActivities#BuildingInterest
iron rose
Having "mentors" or "ambassadors" is absolutely cool. Win for all, I
think. It's also a little tricky. One of the neat things about
KinkForAll is the lack of organizational hierarchy. Formal mentorship
feels very much hierarchical, and it doesn't sit well with me.
I think ironrose was on the right track when she said,
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:
> I'm not sure how to apply it to us in particular, but perhapsI think this is absolutely in-line with the great points that were
> several people could volunteer to be "Mentors", perhaps to under-
> represented groups.
made at the Diversity Discussion at KFABOS, where Maja (I think?) made
said that we can all be "ambassadors of KinkForAll to our friends".
My point is, what about people who don't already have friends as part of our community? Who will be the friends to them, to answer their questions and to help them figure out this kfa thing and to reassure them that this is for them too? Most people easily make friends with others who are like them, with whom they have common ground. This perpetuates a cycle in which a majority remains the majority. Mentors are necessary to provide the "friend" relationship in a way that does *not* develop naturally, because of broader societal effects. If I hadn't been friends with someone in the group already, who helped reassure me and answer my questions, I would never have gotten involved. I hear similar things from other people.
The personal aspect of this is important here. Especially when faced with a group in which you do not feel like you belong, knowing just one person who makes you feel welcome and who you feel like is "on your side" helps a lot. This is not something that can be replaced by a web page.
The core of mentoring is in connecting two people, one of which already has some "belonging" to a group, and the other of which is searching for that belonging. We can fiddle with everything else about the idea, but if we remove the aspect of connecting two people, we remove the whole point. There are people who do not have friends who are already part of KfA, and those are the people who are probably the most different from us and who in the interests of diversity we would like to attract.
I'm not sure what you're thinking when you think about mentoring, but here's one example of a very simple self-organized mentoring program which we could implement: Have a link on the main website which reads "Have questions? We can help." (or something). The link goes to a separate page called "Ambassadors" or "Friends" or "Mentors" or whatever the heck we end up calling it. At the top there's a little blurb about what being on the list means. Then there's a list of names & email addresses, where people can add themselves if they want to be on the list. I think we want a bit more than this, but this is the core of what mentoring is. The mentoring is about addressing the mentee's needs, not the mentor's - think of the mentor more as customer-support than as a teacher.
It's late now, I'll respond to the rest later. I just think that you are getting the wrong idea about what mentoring is about so I want to correct it. It doesn't have to be hierarchial at all. (The word "Mentor" does have formal and hierchial connotations, but we already know we want a different name.) If you still don't like mentoring, well, I still think we should implement it. This is a very powerful tool for increasing diversity and representation, and it'd be a shame not to find some way we can adapt it to work for us.
-ironrose
maymay
> My point is, what about people who don't already have friends as
> part of our community? Who will be the friends to them, to answer
> their questions and to help them figure out this kfa thing and to
> reassure them that this is for them too?
Like I said in my previous email, I think that's *everyone's* task.
Appointing specific people or highlighting specific volunteers to do a
task that is so central to a community that everyone should be doing
it makes no sense to me.
> Most people easily make friends with others who are like them, with
> whom they have common ground. This perpetuates a cycle in which a
> majority remains the majority. Mentors are necessary to provide the
> "friend" relationship in a way that does *not* develop naturally,
> because of broader societal effects. If I hadn't been friends with
> someone in the group already, who helped reassure me and answer my
> questions, I would never have gotten involved. I hear similar
> things from other people.
What you describe has certainly happened, but so has other things.
TTBOMK, Jack Stratton is a good example of someone who learned about
KinkForAll through the grapevine and turned out to really like it.
Avatar Koo is another example of someone who had no friends in the
community, reached out to me, and now has a recording up at KFANYC2's
Vimeo page. I like to think that I did a pretty good job of
"mentoring" her and reassuring her that she was welcome and wanted and
needed, and I'm pretty confident that other people can do what I did
to help others like her become a participant just as well if not
better than I did.
There are other examples I could cite, like Bitsy, whom I met at Sex
2.0, saw for the second time ever at KinkForAll Boston, but who ended
up saving the day for KinkForAll Boston, as you know. Then there's
Sigrid, who donated $200 to KFANYC1 from across the continent just
'cuz she thought KFA was a good idea, and I'd consider that a pretty
strong vote of involvement. No one reached out to her personally,
AFAIK. Let's see…there's also Adrian, who did a presentation at
KFANYC2 and KFABOS, who'd heard about KinkForAll through the Internet
(my MaleSubmissionArt.com blog, actually). There's HotShot315, who
heard about KinkForAll 3 *days* before attending and leading 2
presentations at KFABOS, and who was responsible for the awesome
projector KFABOS had.
And all this happened without any KFA mentorship programs. :)
Basically, I think it's wonderful that people are hearing about
KinkForAll through all sorts of different ways, and I'm getting an
impression that you're making an incorrect assumption about the ways
in which people are involving themselves (or not involving themselves)
based upon your own experience.
> The personal aspect of this is important here. Especially when
> faced with a group in which you do not feel like you belong, knowing
> just one person who makes you feel welcome and who you feel like is
> "on your side" helps a lot. This is not something that can be
> replaced by a web page.
There's absolutely no question the personal aspect is important! You
couldn't be more right about that! That's precisely why I responded so
positively when Avatar Koo reached out to me when I was promoting
KinkForAll. If the personal connection she was trying to make with me
got a less-than-glowing reply, she may have never wanted to go to a
KinkForAll in the first place and would have been turned off by the
whole idea. Thankfully I assured her that "vanilla-covered boots" (her
words) were not just welcome but necessary, and the rest is happy
history.
You bring up the good point that the real problem is that some people
feel as though they do not belong. That's what this diversity thread
is designed to address. It's good to see that we're in agreement about
needing to find a way to make people feel like they really do have a
place here, regardless of who they are or what kind of sex they're
"into."
That's why spotlighting individual human beings seems a really
inappropriate way to do that in a flat unconference structure like
KinkForAll. To put it technically, doing so changes the topology of
the communication network and it's a flat-out mistake.
One idea that comes to mind reading your thoughts, however, is that
back in November 16, 2008, when I was just beginning to compose
TheRulesOfKinkForAll wiki page, I've been hoping that people would
write what I called "ThankYouLetters"[0] (I didn't want to use the
word "testimonial" because it was icky-corporate-sounding). Somewhere
along the way that got moved from TheRulesOfKinkForAll and
incorporated into Chris's "HowToParticipate" page[1] but changed so it
now reads:
> Other ways to show your support
>
> • Send thank you emails to the (public) discussion list.
I remember that early on, Sara pushed people who were on this list and
participated in KFANYC1 to do this, too. Sadly, no one seems to have
done this. Perhaps now's the time to re-encourage people who have had
good experiences to share them either on this list or elsewhere and
begin to aggregate quotes and other testimonial-like "thank you"s on a
wiki page?
I'm thinking that this would be more helpful than highlighting
mentorship in the way you've proposed since it addresses the need for
people who have "no friends" in this community to believe that they
will make some while at the same time passing all the goodness on by
keeping the community's communication flat and open and public at all
times. What do you think of this?
> The core of mentoring is in connecting two people, one of which
> already has some "belonging" to a group, and the other of which is
> searching for that belonging. We can fiddle with everything else
> about the idea, but if we remove the aspect of connecting two
> people, we remove the whole point.
I think we're both talking about connecting people, aren't we…? Not
sure where you got the impression that I didn't think making
connections between folks is a good idea…. Maybe you can help me
understand that part?
> There are people who do not have friends who are already part of
> KfA, and those are the people who are probably the most different
> from us and who in the interests of diversity we would like to
> attract.
You seem very focused on this idea of friends. I would like to
understand why that's so. It seems backwards to suggest that people
who do not have friends in a community they are not yet a part of need
to have a friend in it in order to become one. That's plain as day.
The solution is not to make them believe they have a friend, but to
show them that they can make friends. The way to do that is never to
tell them who they should befriend first. If that were how I was
approached by KinkForAll, I would feel it was…disrespectful. Let's not
do that to people; let's let them make their own informed choices with
*all* the information at their disposal.
> I'm not sure what you're thinking when you think about mentoring,
> but here's one example of a very simple self-organized mentoring
> program which we could implement: Have a link on the main website
> which reads "Have questions? We can help." (or something). The
> link goes to a separate page called "Ambassadors" or "Friends" or
> "Mentors" or whatever the heck we end up calling it. At the top
> there's a little blurb about what being on the list means. Then
> there's a list of names & email addresses, where people can add
> themselves if they want to be on the list. I think we want a bit
> more than this, but this is the core of what mentoring is. The
> mentoring is about addressing the mentee's needs, not the mentor's -
> think of the mentor more as customer-support than as a teacher.
That all sounds great except for the customer support part, which
sounds repulsive to me. I wonder, in your experience, has your
participation in KinkForAll been similar to interacting with a company
who has a support department? If so, please tell us about that.
The text on this hypothetical page you're describing sounds like what
we already have on the wiki's home page:
> New here? Learn HowToParticipate. Read our Diversity page. Join the
> KinkForAll Mailing List,[…]
It sounds like you're suggesting a tweak to that wording, so it reads
perhaps something like:
> "New here? Learn HowToParticipate. Ask questions on the KinkForAll
> Mailing List. Have a look at our Diversity page,[…]
In fact, that's a pretty good edit, I think. I'll go make that change
now. Cool. Done. :) Thanks for the idea! I think that's an
improvement! :D
So anyway, the concept I'm trying to get across here is that rather
than linking to individual email addresses on a new page like the one
you suggest, I think a link from a page like that should at least be
to *this mailing list* and should not make recommendations about who
in this community to contact for what. There's already a gigantic list
of member names and email addresses on this Google Group, plus a list
of "top posters",[2] which by definition lists the most active people
on this list and thus the people most likely to respond when someone
sends an email here. In fact, ironrose, you're currently "top poster"
#4. Cool! :)
> It's late now, I'll respond to the rest later. I just think that
> you are getting the wrong idea about what mentoring is about so I
> want to correct it. It doesn't have to be hierarchial at all. (The
> word "Mentor" does have formal and hierchial connotations, but we
> already know we want a different name.) If you still don't like
> mentoring, well, I still think we should implement it. This is a
> very powerful tool for increasing diversity and representation, and
> it'd be a shame not to find some way we can adapt it to work for us.
>
> -ironrose
I think we should totally "implement mentoring" and I think that the
way to do that is by actively going out to other communities in person
and online and finding people who we think would be interested in
joining the KinkForAll community or who we would like to see join the
KinkForAll community and talking to them and then answering their
questions when they come back to you with them. *That's* "implementing
mentoring" as it applies to this community. That's what this entire
diversity thread is trying to encourage us to do, isn't it? What
you're describing sounds like shuffling text around and hoping people
you haven't reached out to yet show up and send you an email.
I can tell you from experience that actually reaching out to folks is
going to have a bigger impact. Waiting around for emails after putting
your name on a web page will mostly just get you spam. ;)
As a followup question:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 6:32 PM, iron rose wrote:[3]
> * Mentoring: This works for improving diversity in other
> organizations.
Can you provide some examples and references for the situations in
which "mentoring" has worked? Perhaps looking at the specifics of what
other organizations have done, along with what their organizational
goals were (beyond just "improving diversity"—what did that mean to
the organizations for whom "mentoring worked") and the specific
circumstances that surrounded the success these other organizations
had can give us some more insight into what we should consider doing.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/TheRulesOfKinkForAll.2008-11-16-12-13-13
[1] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/HowToParticipate
[2] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/about
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/2ae6551aadde16ce/633bedd27d7e72dd#msg_018f2753bcc30c8e
The Distinguished ...
In the SCA we use "Gold Key" or "Chatelaine" (holder of the keys). It
might be different enough to cause people to stop and have to build new
associations, which is often a good thing at a learning conference.
Percival
On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 19:24 -0700, James Richard Sheldon wrote:
> They use ambassador in some of the groups here as the title for the
> person that does newcomer orientation..
>
>
Bitsy
On Sep 20, 4:44 pm, maymay <bitetheappleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been very loud about my dislike for this skew so I won't rant
> again, but I did want to say that I appreciate your sharing this
> experience with the list, Bitsy. It's important that these things are
> raised here, because clearly your partner—who if he almost left at the
> event itself within minutes of arriving—would not come onto this list
> to explain why he did that of his own volition.
As Bitsy’s partner in question, let me try to shed a little light. I am a bi man in a poly relationship entering one of the white-shoe professions. As I have a (future) professional reputation built on my name, I am very shy with fully revealing myself to any non-mainstream group (e.g. no pictures, asking Bitsy to send this rather than doing so myself). While certain aspects of kink (defined broadly) have some appeal to me, I have found the (literally) violent nature of most kink events I’ve been to somewhat unsettling. I suppose some of it flys in the face of my nurturing instinct.
That said, as bi and poly I do not fit in. I’ve been to various GLBT communities, and feel that I’ve been schluffed off to the side rather immediately – I’m dating a woman and so don’t belong. It seems to me that any majority has a way of asserting it’s prominence and sidelining or suppressing its minorities (e.g. treatment of transfolk in the GLBT community, particularly with respect to proposed federal legislation).
I think Bitsy summed it up well. I have essentially zero interest in the whips and chains aspect of kink, and was simply not interested in attending classes focused on that aspect. Exploration is all well and good, but, being in grad school, my homework competes for time with the rest of my life and I have to be careful to balance the two. Given the schedule when the classes started, I stayed for one session that seemed promising, looked at the schedule again, decided nothing for the next hour or two would likely hold my interest well enough to justify putting off my work, and so I left.
Bitsy
Ironrose had, what I thought, were some good ideas to try to address a problem we all know is there, and, I think they have seemed to have been pushed aside too quickly.
Specific comments:
[maymay, expect when noted]
>Like I said in my previous email, I think that's *everyone's* task.
>Appointing specific people or highlighting specific volunteers to do a
>task that is so central to a community that everyone should be doing
>it makes no sense to me.
I do think it makes sense for people to take charge, there is a reason at the event you have designated time keepers -- its because if everyone were in charge of doing it, it would likely never get done.
>There are other examples I could cite, like Bitsy, whom I met at Sex
>2.0, saw for the second time ever at KinkForAll Boston, but who ended
>up saving the day for KinkForAll Boston, as you know.
I'm not so disinvoled as all that. I may had not have met maymay before, but I was intending to come to KFANYC and 2, but for conflicts. I knew people who were at KFANYC, knew/know several of the people trying to make KFADC happen, and defiantly fall in the demographic of in (to some extent) the BDSM scene, white, geeky, middle/upper-middle/yuppie class. I (and HotShot315, if I may say this little bit for him) are the types that advertising through fetlife will bring in. Which is fine, but, really not the reaching out I feel like KFA needs to do.
>That's why spotlighting individual human beings seems a really
>inappropriate way to do that in a flat unconference structure like
>KinkForAll. To put it technically, doing so changes the topology of
>the communication network and it's a flat-out mistake.
Maybe... but, for me one of the big things that influenced my desire to learn more about KFA was that I looked at the list of people going and said, hey, I know that that person is cool. (Not as a friend, but someone I'd seen present before.) I think it is these kinds of person to person links are supper important, that is why people are asked to blog etc. about KFA.
Which is to say,
>I think we should totally "implement mentoring" and I think that the
>way to do that is by actively going out to other communities in person
>and online and finding people who we think would be interested in
>joining the KinkForAll community or who we would like to see join the
>KinkForAll community and talking to them and then answering their
>questions when they come back to you with them. *That's* "implementing
>mentoring" as it applies to this community. That's what this entire
>diversity thread is trying to encourage us to do, isn't it?
Yes. But, where? Maybe people here who have membership in the non(for lack of a better way to talk about it)fetlife could talk about where people in their community exist online?
Maybe there is something that could be done to make something more prominent on the webpage. I think something really really needs to be done with the reaching out idea, and in more then just an ad-hoc way, and in a way that recognises we are aren't as involved as maymay is.
[ironrose]
> To avoid reinforcing previous trends, perhaps we should have like a
> brainstorm page, of presentations people might want to give, or of
> presentations people might like to see. That might help spark ideas
> for other people, or someone might see a presentation topic listed
> there and suddenly realize, "hey, I could give a presentation on
> that!" where before they might think that no one would be interested
> in what they have to see. We can also use this to avoid a particular
> skew, because we can always add topics on things that we haven't
> seen in prior kfa's to encourage a more diverse topic set.
I think having a link to this, as a permanent thing seem like a good idea. We could call it something like past and future presentations highlight the presentations we would like to see highlighted. This moves something with low prominence to something with higher prominence.
All of this said I haven't a clue how to reach non-geeky people so...
Bitsy
maymay
> [ironrose]
>> To avoid reinforcing previous trends, perhaps we should have like a
>> brainstorm page, of presentations people might want to give, or of
>> presentations people might like to see. That might help spark ideas
>> for other people, or someone might see a presentation topic listed
>> there and suddenly realize, "hey, I could give a presentation on
>> that!" where before they might think that no one would be interested
>> in what they have to see. We can also use this to avoid a particular
>> skew, because we can always add topics on things that we haven't
>> seen in prior kfa's to encourage a more diverse topic set.
>
> I think having a link to this, as a permanent thing seem like a good
> idea. We could call it something like past and future presentations
> highlight the presentations we would like to see highlighted. This
> moves something with low prominence to something with higher
> prominence.
How would you propose who gets to choose what gets "highlighted" and
what doesn't?
maymay
Earlier, I wrote:
On Sep 23, 2009, at 11:19 PM, maymay wrote:
>> It's late now, I'll respond to the rest later. I just think that
>> you are getting the wrong idea about what mentoring is about so I
>> want to correct it. It doesn't have to be hierarchial at all.
>> (The word "Mentor" does have formal and hierchial connotations, but
>> we already know we want a different name.) If you still don't like
>> mentoring, well, I still think we should implement it. This is a
>> very powerful tool for increasing diversity and representation, and
>> it'd be a shame not to find some way we can adapt it to work for us.
>>
>> -ironrose
>
> I think we should totally "implement mentoring" and I think that the
> way to do that is by actively going out to other communities in
> person and online and finding people who we think would be
> interested in joining the KinkForAll community or who we would like
> to see join the KinkForAll community and talking to them and then
> answering their questions when they come back to you with them.
> *That's* "implementing mentoring" as it applies to this community.
> That's what this entire diversity thread is trying to encourage us
> to do, isn't it? What you're describing sounds like shuffling text
> around and hoping people you haven't reached out to yet show up and
> send you an email.
>
> I can tell you from experience that actually reaching out to folks
> is going to have a bigger impact. Waiting around for emails after
> putting your name on a web page will mostly just get you spam. ;)
I think I misrepresented myself in this email. I wouldn't be against
experimenting with mentorship in the way you describe—I don't think
I'd be a good mentor as I understand what you're trying to do and I'm
unconvinced it's an appropriate action to take, but I also want to be
encouraging of experimenting with new ideas. I think I wasn't
encouraging enough in my previous emails where I tried to express my
opinions. I'm trying hard to be encouraging and appreciate the
patience people have shown me—I think asking more questions might help
me do this.
In any event, as I have been thinking about this thread I fear I may
have given the wrong impression about my *intent,* and so I wanted to
set the record straight: this community is a do-ocracy. Please *do*
what you think will work towards our mutual goals of improving
diversity, even when I disagree with what will help. I want to be as
open as possible to risk-taking and experimentation, since I think
that's really important in a do-ocracy (as is voicing opinion).
The Distinguished ...
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 15:51 -0700, Bitsy wrote:
> My partner wanted me to post this for him, so:
>
> On Sep 20, 4:44 pm, maymay <bitetheappleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've been very loud about my dislike for this skew so I won't rant
> > again, but I did want to say that I appreciate your sharing this
> > experience with the list, Bitsy. It's important that these things are
> > raised here, because clearly your partner—who if he almost left at the
> > event itself within minutes of arriving—would not come onto this list
> > to explain why he did that of his own volition.
>
> As Bitsy’s partner in question, let me try to shed a little light. I
> am a bi man in a poly relationship entering one of the white-shoe
> professions. As I have a (future) professional reputation built on my
> name, I am very shy with fully revealing myself to any non-mainstream
> group (e.g. no pictures, asking Bitsy to send this rather than doing
> so myself). While certain aspects of kink (defined broadly) have some
> appeal to me, I have found the (literally) violent nature of most kink
> events I’ve been to somewhat unsettling. I suppose some of it flys in
> the face of my nurturing instinct.
Indeed, this was one of the reasons there were so many posts about kink!
=BDSM, and the need for said posts, because, in many people's minds,
despite what I've seen posted here, kink does = BDSM on some level.
This scares/turns away/causes people to disassociate with anything
labeled "kink". We have an odd dichotomy. Folks who are in positions
of government, or trusted with our children, we want to be exemplar
beyond every standard we hold ourselves to. Our teachers have "morality
clauses" in their contracts, and our government officials are expected
to follow the same.
Why do I mention this? Well ... because of the name 'KinkForAll'. It's
not, you see. It's KinkForSome. And which of the some? Well ... that
seems to be organizing much on the way of John Conway's game of life[1]
since what is put into it, seems to be self-generating more and more
elements that are similar to the elements that already exist.
Now, being one of those "bad, evil" folks who's main kink interest is in
the BDSM area, scaring off everyone else, I feel like my kink is both
overrepresented, and also, being told that that is bad. Many of us in
the BDSM world have fought for a long, long time, to not be seen as
"bad, evil" and extreme minority, and, "if you do this, you are going to
end up dead, in a 55 gallon drum." and the like. And yet, here we are,
getting taken to task for being too overwhelmingly present.
> That said, as bi and poly I do not fit in. I’ve been to various GLBT
> communities, and feel that I’ve been schluffed off to the side rather
> immediately – I’m dating a woman and so don’t belong. It seems to me
> that any majority has a way of asserting it’s prominence and
> sidelining or suppressing its minorities (e.g. treatment of transfolk
> in the GLBT community, particularly with respect to proposed federal
> legislation).
You know ... this brings up the whole concept of tribes. Part of the
point of a tribe is to identify exactly who is in it, and who is not.
Unlike the rampant views on the Internet, exuberant inclusivity is not a
tribe trait. So people are looking to figure out who is "us". Looking
at the various KinkForAll pieces, we have a tone of who is "us" and
people are looking to redefine that, in different ways. The GLBT
communities, seem much more GL than BT, from what is being said here,
and yet, they are trying to define themselves wider than their tribe
tendency is taking them.
I mean, I remember how reluctant the leather folks and drag queens were
begrudgingly let into the Stonewall Reunions. Because they were no
longer part of the large tribe's self definition. I'm not saying that
we shouldn't fight for wider inclusivity in the tribes, but ... it is a
fight, and that should be acknowledged, not puzzled over.
> I think Bitsy summed it up well. I have essentially zero interest in
> the whips and chains aspect of kink, and was simply not interested in
> attending classes focused on that aspect. Exploration is all well and
> good, but, being in grad school, my homework competes for time with
> the rest of my life and I have to be careful to balance the two. Given
> the schedule when the classes started, I stayed for one session that
> seemed promising, looked at the schedule again, decided nothing for
> the next hour or two would likely hold my interest well enough to
> justify putting off my work, and so I left.
Indeed. Unfortunately, as I'm sure others will come to it, it means you
were simply a consumer, not a participant. They might say "if you
didn't see anything interesting, start up something interesting, because
this is your event, as much as anyone else's event." But, you didn't
feel that way, you didn't feel as if this was your tribe, your event,
something you were committed to, and gung-ho about, but something that,
if it had something interesting at it, you might have weight that
against the work that is weighing on you, and decided if it was worth
your while. There is nothing wrong with that, from my point of view.
BUT (and there is always a but, isn't there) there are people, on this
list, and in this tribe, who think that it should have been a priority
for you, that it should have stirred up in you the excitement, the
drive, the thought that you belong, and you want everyone else to belong
with you. And that just simply isn't true.
Now, why isn't it true? Well ... if we explore that, understand that,
and either accept it, or change to try and make it a different truth ...
then, maybe we might become either truly "KinkForAll" or accept that we
are "KinkForSome" and decide that path is the path we will walk proudly.
Just some thoughts,
Lord Percival, Kink instructor for over 20 years.
[1] 1970-October issue of Scientific American, Martin Gardner's
"Mathematical Games" column
maymay
> in many people's minds,
> despite what I've seen posted here, kink does = BDSM on some level.
Why do you think that "in many people's mind's … kink=BDSM", Percival?
In my mind, kink is like a rectangle and BDSM is like a square. That
is to say, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.
BDSM can be kinky but kink isn't limited to BDSM. As a question, what
might you call a loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one
another and kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on
sex in which the man is the penetrated partner? This seems kinky to
me. It doesn't sound like BDSM…. What about the way many people talk
about scheduling time for sex and other intimate acts with one
another? I mean, *scheduling* time for sex? Sounds kinky to me because
it's certainly beyond the scope of conventional wisdom that heralds
sex as decidedly spontaneous.
I also wonder, *when* did kink become inextricably associated with
BDSM "in many people's minds," and who these "many people" are? If
they are people like you, then perhaps a more answerable question is
when did kink become inextricable linked to BDSM in your mind, if it
has?
On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:30 AM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
> because of the name 'KinkForAll'. It's
> not, you see. It's KinkForSome. And which of the some? Well ...
> that
> seems to be organizing much on the way of John Conway's game of life
> [1]
> since what is put into it, seems to be self-generating more and more
> elements that are similar to the elements that already exist.
> […]
> then, maybe we might become either truly "KinkForAll" or accept that
> we
> are "KinkForSome" and decide that path is the path we will walk
> proudly.
Do you read "KinkForAll" as "KinkForAll events for everyone", as in,
everyone will feel welcome like they *should* participate in a
KinkForAll event? Or do you read "KinkForAll" as "open up kink for
everyone who wants it."? Also, if "KinkForSome" is a path some people
are thinking about, my next questions would be, "who is the some, and
why"? For example, if this group of people continue to self-generate
more elements that are similar to elements that already exist, what
would be the benefits that come of it? Would you be proud of those
things?
> Just some thoughts,
> Lord Percival, Kink instructor for over 20 years.
Percival, I found your signature interesting. You call yourself a
"Kink instructor" here, and earlier in your email you said that
"kink=BDSM" in many people's minds. I am curious: does that equation
exist in your mind? I ask because, in the list of topics you posted as
potential presentation subjects for KinkForAll Boston (which, sadly, I
did not see you at), you wrote this:
> * rope (many aspects)
> * pressure point play
> * safety
> * impact play
> * sadism
> * the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc
> * building communities
> * many other things, this is getting too long.
Which of these topics do you see as instructional in kink, and which
do you see as being instructional in BDSM?
Sarah Taub
James Richard Sheldon
people." Not to say that diversity isn't important, but that you have
to respect and value the space you have created too...
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@ james sheldon
@ http://www.jamessheldon.com
@ voyag...@gmail.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Syd Gottfried
Syd
Philip
about the "many people think kink equals BDSM" topic. It's a really
good read. Just as Percy did, the author of "BDSM versus Kink: Nobody
but your sex partner cares how you fuck"[0] made some good points
about why the perception persists and how to avoid it.
One of the reasons that "kink = BDSM" persists may be because the
founding of and enthusiasm for KFA came from that community. It's
understandable that if some soccer enthusiasts started a Sports For
All unconference, baseball aficionados might feel that as far as that
conference was concerned, "sport = soccer."
It may be that BDSMers tend to be very vocal and eager to share their
kink. I really don't know. I mean Scheduled Sex enthusiasts probably
have web sites and erotica devoted to their kink, but they seem to be
less vocal about it.
In any case, for anyone concerned about "kink = BDSM" I heartily
recommend BDSM versus Kink: Nobody but your sex partner cares how you
fuck"[0]
[0] http://maybemaimed.com/2009/05/03/bdsm-versus-kink-nobody-but-your-sex-partner-cares-how-you-fuck/
maymay
> Well, here's a data point. I have been involved in sex-positive
> communities and politics for 20+ years, as a "vanilla" bi woman. I
> knew "kinky" (the adjectival form) before the acronym BDSM came into
> use. To me, it's always been a term for activitiles or people
> related to power exchange, pain play, etc. etc. -- the territory
> that BDSM also covers (in my usage).
Sarah, having been involved in the sex-positive communities for 20+
years, are you saying you were first aware of the usage of "kinky"
after joining these sex-positive communities, or before?
> The noun form "kink" as a word for what kinky people do is more
> recent -- in my experience, it was used first as a word for a
> specific type of activity ("What's your kink?") and more recently as
> a generalized word for all these sorts of activity. In my mind,
> "kink" and "BDSM" denote basically the same thing and always have,
> for as long as I've been using those words. "Vanilla" is the
> opposite, and to me denotes sex without role play, pain play, power
> exchange, etc. Believe me, in my mind, scheduling is *very* vanilla!
In my mind, scheduling sex is also "vanilla." :) What's
unconventional, what's *kinky*, for me isn't the same as what's going
to be kinky for other people. Would you say that people at a
KinkForAll should be thinking about the people who come to this
community along a binary of "vanilla and kinky" based on what sexual
activities they like to personally perform? If so, who is to judge
which acts are kinky and which are vanilla? This sounds like "us and
them" to me, and I'm not sure I feel good about that.
> FWIW, I have a Ph.D in linguistics and taught the same for 9 years;
> I have not done a full study of these words but would be happy to
> give a summary of the issues that would need to be addressed in
> comparing the uses and meanings of these words in various communities.
>
> warm wishes, Sarah
That sounds fascinating! And like it'd be a good presentation topic,
if I may make the suggestion. :)
maymay
> It may be that BDSMers tend to be very vocal and eager to share their
> kink. I really don't know. I mean Scheduled Sex enthusiasts probably
> have web sites and erotica devoted to their kink, but they seem to be
> less vocal about it.
I'm uncertain if they would self-identify in this fashion, but
scheduled sex enthusiasts do actually have a pretty cool web site.
Check out
On Sep 29, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> So, maybe we need to try to define "kink" the was KFA uses the word
> (again?) since its apparently still pretty unclear.
>
> Syd
Is "queer" any clearer to you? Queer communities face similar issues
of diversity as kinky ones. For that matter, what's the overlap, if
there is one, between queer and kinky?
Philip
> So, maybe we need to try to define "kink" the was KFA uses the word (again?)
> since its apparently still pretty unclear.
>
"[...] I’ve come to see this word [kink] as encompassing any
non-mainstream sexuality, maybe a further broadening or development or
evolution of “queer.” I think we can use it that way; it’s not as if
it’s a word that actually connotes a specific sexual desire or
practice in the way that the B, D, S, and M of that acronym do."
Not identifying as a member of any queer community, I don't know what
it means for "kink" to be an evolution of "queer."
For me, "kink" is not so much a practice but an approach to sex and
sexuality. When I hear "Kink for All" I hear: "We're going to talk
about sex and what it means to be a person with a sexual identity, how
it is an expression of our selves, and how that expression manifests
itself in the way we live. We're probably not going to talk very much
about how to have sex."
[0]http://maybemaimed.com/2009/05/03/bdsm-versus-kink-nobody-but-your-sex-partner-cares-how-you-fuck/
Philip
> I'm uncertain if they would self-identify in this fashion, but
> scheduled sex enthusiasts do actually have a pretty cool web site.
> Check out
>
> http://bedposted.com
Amazing. I love Rule 34 [http://xkcd.com/305/]
maymay
> > I'm uncertain if they would self-identify in this fashion, but
> > scheduled sex enthusiasts do actually have a pretty cool web site.
> > Check out
>
> >http://bedposted.com
>
> Amazing. I love Rule 34 [http://xkcd.com/305/]
For what it's worth, Bedposted.com has been around for years but in
private beta the whole time. I've wanted to get an account for ages
since I both love meticulous record keeping and find the site's drive
towards opaque information silos and away from publicly shareable
social data interesting. Which also brings up the earlier point you
made, Philip, that many communities of people are not vocal about
their sexuality. Bedposted is a great example of a neat site that is
absolutely silent in terms of the information it gives an individual
user about other individual users, far less the public.
Given that, do you think it would be a good idea for us, while having
these "diversity" discussions, and "defining kink" discussions[0], to
consider ourselves largely ignorant of people who are not as vocal as
we are? (I am trying to do this on a personal level, at least.)
Cheers,
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
presentation at KinkForAll Boston used an analysis of the dictionary
and Wikipedia to help frame the discussion.
Syd Gottfried
"For me, "kink" is not so much a practice but an approach to sex and
sexuality. When I hear "Kink for All" I hear: "We're going to talk
about sex and what it means to be a person with a sexual identity, how
it is an expression of our selves, and how that expression manifests
itself in the way we live. We're probably not going to talk very much
about how to have sex."
Syd
Sarah Taub
From: maymay
> years, are you saying you were first aware of the usage of "kinky"
> after joining these sex-positive communities, or before?
Not sure I remember any more .... sorry! :-)
I checked out the Urban Dictionary, which is a wiki-like slang dictionary
where anyone can add definitions. www.urbandictionary.com . I've read
through it on past occasions and it's got a pretty large sampling of
contributions from different populations -- though of course not a
controlled or balanced sample.
There were 7 entries for "kink". One mentioned BDSM. Six stated or implied
that "kink" is a weird, abnormal, or unusual sexual behavior. (The seventh
was clearly a regionalism - "kink" = stereotypically Mormon.)
There were also 7 entries for "kinky", some of them quite creative. :-)
All 7 made reference to sexual behavior that is out of the norm. 3
explicitly referenced BDSM or similar terms. 3 also suggested that "kinky"
is relative to one's own behaviors and norms. 2 gave "vanilla" as the
opposite of "kinky".
If we can take these entries as representative, we can say that "kink=BDSM"
is not a foregone conclusion, but "kink=out-of-the-norm sex" is a standard
interpretation.
"KinkForAll" might therefore easily be interpreted as "let's
spread/publicize/talk about out-of-the-norm sex." If that's not the
impression that is desired, some action or additional words might be needed
to counter that impression.
An event titled KinkForAll might not be perceived as welcoming or
interesting to people who don't see their sexual behaviors as "out of the
norm."
warm wishes, Sarah
maymay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: maymay
>> Sarah, having been involved in the sex-positive communities for 20+
>> years, are you saying you were first aware of the usage of "kinky"
>> after joining these sex-positive communities, or before?
>
> Not sure I remember any more .... sorry! :-)
Ah. Oh well. :) I come from a slightly different background; my use of
the word "kink" was first encountered from the BDSM community
specifically, and I used the words interchangeably. I began to change
my usage of the word when I realized that my "vanilla" friends were
also using the word kinky, but they were using it in ways I did not
associate with the meaning of the word. This led to my understanding
that "kink" as both a concept and a word is far more subjective and
yet far more wide-reaching than I previously thought it was. (And the
rest, well, is history. ;)
> I checked out the Urban Dictionary, which is a wiki-like slang
> dictionary
> where anyone can add definitions.
> […]
> There were 7 entries for "kink". One mentioned BDSM. Six stated or
> implied
> that "kink" is a weird, abnormal, or unusual sexual behavior. (The
> seventh
> was clearly a regionalism - "kink" = stereotypically Mormon.)
>
> There were also 7 entries for "kinky", some of them quite
> creative. :-)
> All 7 made reference to sexual behavior that is out of the norm. 3
> explicitly referenced BDSM or similar terms. 3 also suggested that
> "kinky"
> is relative to one's own behaviors and norms. 2 gave "vanilla" as the
> opposite of "kinky".
>
> If we can take these entries as representative, we can say that
> "kink=BDSM"
> is not a foregone conclusion, but "kink=out-of-the-norm sex" is a
> standard
> interpretation.
Wow, that's a very cool brief analysis. And very telling, I would
argue. Sarah, thanks for the data points on this! I feel more certain
in insisting that my understanding of the way the wider world uses the
words "kink" and "kinky" is not out of whack with reality. :)
Especially since in every single sampling you gave above, BDSM-
centricity was well under 50% of the definitions given.
> "KinkForAll" might therefore easily be interpreted as "let's
> spread/publicize/talk about out-of-the-norm sex." If that's not the
> impression that is desired, some action or additional words might be
> needed
> to counter that impression.
I actually think the "let's spread/publicize/talk about out-of-then-
norm sex" description sounds about right. I would change the word
"sex" to "sexuality," though. What do you think?
> An event titled KinkForAll might not be perceived as welcoming or
> interesting to people who don't see their sexual behaviors as "out
> of the
> norm."
>
> warm wishes, Sarah
Yeah, that's totally true. So I think the question then becomes, would
we like to see KinkForAll participants include people who do see their
sexual behavior as "normal" but who don't fit within the views other
people have as being normal? (If so, can we begin to identify who
these people are?)
Cheers,
Syd Gottfried
we like to see KinkForAll participants include people who do see their
sexual behavior as "normal" but who don't fit within the views other
people have as being normal? (If so, can we begin to identify who
these people are?)
Cheers,
I think that KFA should include those who view their sexual behavior as normal, but who don't fit into others views of normality, those who don't think that their sexual behaviors are normal, and those who's sexual behavior is viewed as normal by themselves and everyone else, and everybody inbetween!
While KFA's focus on alternate sexualities, orientations, etc. is great and that its great to get as much diversity in those areas as possible, I think it would be great if we also has "normal" or "vanilla" (or whatever) people also participating and contributing! But I also realize that making that a reality is even more challenging than the current diversity goals.
Syd
DDog
> "Yeah, that's totally true. So I think the question then becomes, would
> we like to see KinkForAll participants include people who do see their
> sexual behavior as "normal" but who don't fit within the views other
> people have as being normal? (If so, can we begin to identify who
> these people are?)
>
> Cheers,
> -maymay"
>
> I think that KFA should include those who view their sexual behavior as
> normal, but who don't fit into others views of normality, those who don't
> think that their sexual behaviors are normal, and those who's sexual
> behavior is viewed as normal by themselves and everyone else, and everybody
> inbetween!
>
> While KFA's focus on alternate sexualities, orientations, etc. is great and
> that its great to get as much diversity in those areas as possible, I think
> it would be great if we also has "normal" or "vanilla" (or whatever) people
> also participating and contributing! But I also realize that making that a
> reality is even more challenging than the current diversity goals.
>
> Syd
kinky," regardless of whether someone else would identify them
differently, should be as welcome as anyone else.
One of the things about "normal" is that there are certain categories/
labels/identities/groups that are unmarked and constructed as the
standard, and therefore have the power to define and mark others,
usually negatively. Thus we have "normal" and "disabled," "normal" and
"homosexual," "normal" and "woman," "normal" and "ambiguous
genitalia," "normal" and "colored," et freaking cetera. If you place
yourself or are placed by others in one or more of the marked
categories, it becomes really tiresome to be othered all the time.
However, one of the effects of various liberation movements is that
the othered groups began marking the "normal" in turn, as well as
remarking their own groups in positive ways. As a result, the
"standard" identities are problematized, ideally lessening the
othering effect of naming power, but also allowing previously ignored
aspects of the "standard" to come to light.
I'm trying to say this without getting too mucked up in a simplistic
"people with privilege have problems too." Still, homophobia has a
negative effect on straight people; sexism has a negative effect on
men; transphobia has a negative effect on cissexual people. It's not
comparable to the negative effect on the marginalized groups, but
while these relations of ruling can confer massive privilege on the
dominant groups they are also damaging for them in specific ways.
Thus, "queer" is not merely interchangeable with "GLBTQI" but can also
entail an expanded framework of anti-heteronormativity that is not
tethered to sexual orientation; a straight person can have queer
sensibilities and a gay person may not. I think this may have been the
analogy that Philip brought up in a quote upthread, that "kink" could
perhaps function in a similar way in relation to "BDSM" as "queer"
does to "GLBTQI." I don't think "queer" should be retired in favor of
an all-encompassing definition of "kink" (the concept of "kink" being
an "evolution of queer" makes me nervous with regard to ranking and
homogenizing identities) but I do think that "kink" can signify an
expanded framework of anti-normativity in sexuality that is not
tethered to specific sexual/sensual behaviors or desires. (How "queer"
and "kink" interrelate would actually be a great topic for a
KinkForAll presentation...)
In this way, even someone whose personal sexual/sensual behaviors and
desires are the most vanilla thing you can think of—a friend of mine
says "heterocismonoganilla missionary-in-the-dark"—can be kinky in
embracing such a framework, should be welcome at KinkForAll, and may
have as important contributions as a participant as anyone else in
attendance.
Wow. Can you tell I have an academic bias? This is my first post so I
apologize if this has all been said before, or previously thrown out.
And as for HOW to ensure such a welcome...still working on that
part. :-)
To return to Philip's post again,
"For me, 'kink' is not so much a practice but an approach to sex and
sexuality. When I hear 'Kink for All' I hear: 'We're going to talk
about sex and what it means to be a person with a sexual identity, how
it is an expression of our selves, and how that expression manifests
itself in the way we live. We're probably not going to talk very much
about how to have sex.' "
-DDog.
maymay
> I think people who self-identify as "vanilla" or "normal" or "not
> kinky," regardless of whether someone else would identify them
> differently, should be as welcome as anyone else.
That's good to hear. I agree with that strongly.
> (How "queer"
> and "kink" interrelate would actually be a great topic for a
> KinkForAll presentation...)
Again, yeah. I'd be really interested in that one. :)
> In this way, even someone whose personal sexual/sensual behaviors and
> desires are the most vanilla thing you can think of—a friend of mine
> says "heterocismonoganilla missionary-in-the-dark"—can be kinky in
> embracing such a framework, should be welcome at KinkForAll, and may
> have as important contributions as a participant as anyone else in
> attendance.
LOL! I love "heterocismonoganilla". Someone should add that to the
urban dictionary.[0] :)
But on a more serious note, I think this was really, really well-said.
I've read it over twice (because academic language is hard for me),
but I think I agree 100% with 100% of what you wrote, DDog.
> Wow. Can you tell I have an academic bias? This is my first post so I
> apologize if this has all been said before, or previously thrown out.
I think some of it has been said before, but you don't need to
apologize. It's never a bad thing to have people reiterate things in
their own words, or speak up when issues get raised again (as many
issues on this list have been raised time and time again…) since we're
creating an archive of discussion for meta-KinkForAll topics here just
as KinkForAll events strive to create documented, shareable knowledge
in the wider world. So at minimum, ask, and if something's been well-
discussed, then an answer might be as simple as a reference to a
previous archived thread on this list. :)
> And as for HOW to ensure such a welcome...still working on that
> part. :-)
Yeah, that's the tough part. Have you had a chance to look at/think
about/add data points to the work Ironrose, Syd, myself, and a few
others are trying to do with regards to this? The relevant thread is
here:
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/65ae704881080e3d
and one of the outcomes of the thread was a wiki page that is here:
http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/Finding-Support
If you feel like you can help or if you have any suggestions, or think
you can add Forward Motion[1] to anything we're doing, I think every
one of us would be all ears.
> To return to Philip's post again,
>
> "For me, 'kink' is not so much a practice but an approach to sex and
> sexuality. When I hear 'Kink for All' I hear: 'We're going to talk
> about sex and what it means to be a person with a sexual identity, how
> it is an expression of our selves, and how that expression manifests
> itself in the way we live. We're probably not going to talk very much
> about how to have sex.' "
>
> I second Syd: this statement resonated with me as well.
>
> -DDog.
Thirded. I really liked the way Philip phrased this.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://www.urbandictionary.com/
[1] http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy
The Distinguished ...
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 12:29 -0700, maymay wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:30 AM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>
> > in many people's minds,
> > despite what I've seen posted here, kink does = BDSM on some level.
>
> Why do you think that "in many people's mind's … kink=BDSM", Percival?
Empirical evidence. Here is a "kink" event. Most of the topics both at
the NY one and the Boston one were BDSM relative, or BDSM focused. Most
of the people organizing things are tied, on one level or another to the
BDSM crowd. In our culture's literature "kinky" often involves some
element of BDSM, so, too in advertising, and even the cartoons we watch
as children.
*shrug* If it weren't, this whole discussion would never have happened.
If you want to start redefining the usage of words, the concepts behind
them, go ahead, but, realize you are trying to redefine, not define
originally.
> In my mind, kink is like a rectangle and BDSM is like a square. That
> is to say, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.
And sex, overall is a rhombus? Indeed. But, for most people, they only
know the square that is BDSM, and the corner cases that are your
rectangles, often get ignored in the generalizations.
> BDSM can be kinky but kink isn't limited to BDSM.
Not limited, yes, but, to most people that I've run into, and that I've
talked to, found, met with, taught, learned from, etc. They do tend to
be more of an onto relationship rather than a one-directional mapping.
Matter of fact, many of the folks I know would actually put their BDSM
activities not in the kink frame, because they have nothing, whatsoever,
to do with sex. But that's a whole different argument, and I'm sure
that it would be irreverent here.
> As a question, what
> might you call a loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one
> another and kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on
> sex in which the man is the penetrated partner?
Or the woman? For some that tenderness still contains D/s (the center
of BDSM) activities, and for others, it's just part of their normal
activities. Ask Strapon-Jo about her point of view on it, and you'll
probably get more information than I could ever convey. But, even in
this choice, this activity, some might see BDSM in it, others might not.
I'd suggest (to take an example) that you look at Swinging as a kink
that is non-BDSM, but, even there, you have to be careful, because, if I
recall my history properly, most of the het-BDSM is descendant from the
Swinging scene, in this culture, and often historically, as well.
> This seems kinky to
> me. It doesn't sound like BDSM….
It depends on the listener.
> What about the way many people talk
> about scheduling time for sex and other intimate acts with one
> another? I mean, *scheduling* time for sex? Sounds kinky to me because
> it's certainly beyond the scope of conventional wisdom that heralds
> sex as decidedly spontaneous.
Actually, if you talk to many sex therapists, you have it backward.
Unscheduled sex is often considered the non-normal, and the kinky, and,
therefore scary. Whereas, having it on a certain, well-known schedule,
one can do one's duty, and not worry about it the rest of the time.
> I also wonder, *when* did kink become inextricably associated with
> BDSM "in many people's minds,"
I'd say, in our culture, after the 60s. In the 60s "kink" was more tied
to orgies and swinging. But it's changed over time.
> and who these "many people" are?
The standard people in our present culture. Especially the people in
our sub-culture, that might be involved with KinkForAll, which is why we
were talking about it, in the first place.
> If
> they are people like you, then perhaps a more answerable question is
> when did kink become inextricable linked to BDSM in your mind, if it
> has?
I'm not talking about my mind, at the moment, I'm talking about the
cultural trends we seem to be trying to buck to get an unconference, to
actually have a hidden agenda, as opposed to a gathering of those
self-selected to be at it.
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 7:30 AM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>
> > because of the name 'KinkForAll'. It's
> > not, you see. It's KinkForSome. And which of the some? Well ...
> > that
> > seems to be organizing much on the way of John Conway's game of life
> > [1]
> > since what is put into it, seems to be self-generating more and more
> > elements that are similar to the elements that already exist.
> > […]
> > then, maybe we might become either truly "KinkForAll" or accept that
> > we
> > are "KinkForSome" and decide that path is the path we will walk
> > proudly.
>
> Do you read "KinkForAll" as "KinkForAll events for everyone", as in,
> everyone will feel welcome like they *should* participate in a
> KinkForAll event?
That seems to be what the folks pushing for kink!=BDSM are looking for.
> Or do you read "KinkForAll" as "open up kink for
> everyone who wants it."?
Isn't that the same thing? I mean don't we want everyone to be a
participant? If not, why are we trying to bring everyone in from all
walks of life, and insisting that everyone who comes in, is a
participant, not a tourist?
> Also, if "KinkForSome" is a path some people
> are thinking about, my next questions would be, "who is the some, and
> why"?
A self-selected group, who are willing to come out and present, or visit
the presentations that are put on. I'd think that was self-evident from
the strictures of BarCamp and the writings on KinkForAll and other
unconferences like the Grue that I've been a part of.
> For example, if this group of people continue to self-generate
> more elements that are similar to elements that already exist, what
> would be the benefits that come of it? Would you be proud of those
> things?
The benefit would be for those who wish to go to it, otherwise why would
they volunteer their time and effort to try and make it happen. As for
pride, I try to have pride in everything I turn my hand to. Don't you?
I know it sounds simplistic, but ... often things are self-selecting.
I, personally, tend to steer clear from team sports, so news about team
sports, and the fields they are playing on, often don't come my way. I
don't choose to spend effort on it, so ... I don't necessarily know
there is a fund-raiser to save the local soccer fields, nor do I really
care. But, I do know when there is a fund-raiser to help a BDSM family,
who, due to circumstances (car broken into, fire, etc) have had big
losses, and I do devote my time to such causes. Because I self-select
for where my interest is.
Unlike a normal conference, which is set up by people, for a specific
cause, and with advertising for what that cause might be, who might be
coming to promote it, and the like, an unconference is what the people
who want to come, make of it. Artificially trying to change, restrict,
or influence that, makes it a conference that is masquerading as an
unconference, with hidden agendas, and it is no longer an effort of all
who are involved, but a (possibly secret) sub-group that are pushing a
particular agenda.
> > Just some thoughts,
> > Lord Percival, Kink instructor for over 20 years.
>
> Percival, I found your signature interesting. You call yourself a
> "Kink instructor" here, and earlier in your email you said that
> "kink=BDSM" in many people's minds.
Indeed, interesting choice, no? Perhaps, I was trying to make a point?
> I am curious: does that equation
> exist in your mind?
Does it exist in yours? What did you think of, when you saw "kink
instructor"? I'm willing to bet that many people who read this thought
BDSM instructor ...
> I ask because, in the list of topics you posted as
> potential presentation subjects for KinkForAll Boston (which, sadly, I
> did not see you at), you wrote this:
Indeed, alas, as it turned out, I was busy instructing at RopeRider's
convention on Rope, which was an inconvenient distance from the
KinkForAll event.
> > * rope (many aspects)
> > * pressure point play
> > * safety
> > * impact play
> > * sadism
> > * the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc
> > * building communities
> > * many other things, this is getting too long.
>
> Which of these topics do you see as instructional in kink, and which
> do you see as being instructional in BDSM?
Which do you? I can see them in many different ways, and can teach them
in many different ways. Usually (as people who have heard me teach can
vouch for) I tailor my classes to what the audience wants and expects.
I often ask them for such information before I teach.
> Cheers,
> -maymay
> Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
> Community: http://KinkForAll.org
> Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
Good luck,
Lord Percival
Syd Gottfried
Not that that's really relevant to anything we are discussing.
And @Percival, when you said "kink instructor" I didn't think "BDSM instructor," and neither of those two things hold much meaning for me anyway (how can one be an instructor on the entire spectrum of what people think is kinky? Or the entirety of BDSM?). I assumed you meant an instructor on a specific fetish, or a specific way of having kinky sex, or something like that, since thats the only way I can imagine someone being a "kink instructor."
Syd
The Distinguished ...
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 13:28 -0700, maymay wrote:
> On Sep 29, 1:15 pm, Philip <septimus1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 4:05 PM, maymay <bitetheappleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm uncertain if they would self-identify in this fashion, but
> > > scheduled sex enthusiasts do actually have a pretty cool web site.
> > > Check out
> >
> > >http://bedposted.com
> >
> > Amazing. I love Rule 34 [http://xkcd.com/305/]
>
> :) Yeah, me too.
>
> For what it's worth, Bedposted.com has been around for years but in
> private beta the whole time.
Indeed? And yet, there are hundreds of thousands of "kink" sites that
are BDSM. I'm back to "many folks, kink=BDSM".
> I've wanted to get an account for ages
> since I both love meticulous record keeping and find the site's drive
> towards opaque information silos and away from publicly shareable
> social data interesting.
Interesting kink! Share more about it, please? *grin* From what I'm
seeing you are putting a lot of Power Exchange into the calendar, and
control of the calendar. Which, again, in my mind Power Exchange is a
subset of D/s. Which is part of the BDSM umbrella. Hrm ...
interesting, no?
> Which also brings up the earlier point you
> made, Philip, that many communities of people are not vocal about
> their sexuality. Bedposted is a great example of a neat site that is
> absolutely silent in terms of the information it gives an individual
> user about other individual users, far less the public.
If they are not willing to drag their personal "kinks" out into the
public, in the relative anonymity of the 'Net, why would we think they
would be willing to do so at a KinkForAll event, where they have to be
linked to it, very ostentatiously, and possibly preserved on film, on
the internet, for 20 minutes going on about their particular bent?
Especially if they want to be accepted by mainstream society, in a
position of responsibility at some point?
> Given that, do you think it would be a good idea for us, while having
> these "diversity" discussions, and "defining kink" discussions[0], to
> consider ourselves largely ignorant of people who are not as vocal as
> we are? (I am trying to do this on a personal level, at least.)
Indeed, except, if we yank them out of their comfort-zones, and drag
them to a place they don't want to be, do we expect them to be
enthusiastic about it? Keep them in mind, certainly, and if one of them
comes forth, I'm sure all of us would be delighted to help them, welcome
them, and hear what they have to say. But forcing it? It sits wrong
with me. It goes against the whole concept of consent.
> [0] http://www.vimeo.com/6660396 <--- A great "defining kink"
> presentation at KinkForAll Boston used an analysis of the dictionary
> and Wikipedia to help frame the discussion.
Lord Percival
The Distinguished ...
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 16:49 -0400, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> Hell, if you really want to look at all the definitions of the word
> kink, "kinky" was, during the 60s, British slang for "cool." One
> might have said "those are kinky boots" instead of "those are cool
> boots."
Avengers.
> Not that that's really relevant to anything we are discussing.
> And @Percival, when you said "kink instructor" I didn't think "BDSM
> instructor," and neither of those two things hold much meaning for me
> anyway (how can one be an instructor on the entire spectrum of what
> people think is kinky? Or the entirety of BDSM?). I assumed you
> meant an instructor on a specific fetish, or a specific way of having
> kinky sex, or something like that, since thats the only way I can
> imagine someone being a "kink instructor."
depends on who makes up the class. If people are hot for rope
construction methods, that might be what my rope class is on. If people
are hot for the application of rope to male genitalia, that might be
what my class is on. It all depends on the interest of the folks
involved. Does that help?
Lord Percival
Syd Gottfried
Someone could totally teach a class on the definition of "kink," though :p
Syd
The Distinguished ...
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 17:18 -0400, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> So, it seems like you mainly teach classes on rope, because, I'm
> assuming, you know a lot about that one specific kink (or fetish,
> whatever). I would probably think of you as a "rope bondage
> instructive", not a "kink instructor" which implies something so broad
> that it doesn't even make sense. Rope bondage is a specific kink, and
> so one could be an instructor on that, but the word "kink" by itself
> describes a huge amount of varied actions, activities, attitudes, etc
> (all of which might be thought of as kinky, or not, by different
> people) that it would be impossible for one person to know everything
> about "kink" and be an instructor on it.
questioning. Shall I do the same for the second? Pressure point play?
My audience might want to know of my time studying acupressure and
acupuncture, or be interested in how not to compress nerves while having
wild sex in bed, or where to press to illicit certain responses, or how
to use them in terms of self-defence, during a sexual encounter (or
other encounter) gone wrong, or how to give phenomenal amounts of pain
to a pain-slut who can't have large marks on them, or ...
Or, what was my third one? Safety? That could be everything from
food-prep (I do so love Alton Brown) for the sensuous presentation of
food to another, through how do have a safe-call for a date, through
rigging safety (I've passed my professional theater riggers course)
through nerve-safety (see above topic) through the safety fetish that
Jay Wiseman seems to have ... and I could go on.
Fouth? Fifth?
The Sixth might not fit with the concept of "kink" because it has
nothing to do with sex or sexuality, but ... I though it might fit with
the overall feeling of the day, perhaps I was wrong with that.
Seventh? That's perhaps the most broad.
But, I should ask, what was your point again? Oh, yes. Am I qualified
to bill myself as a "kink instructor"? I think I am. Otherwise, I
wouldn't. Do you think I am? I don't know. Do I care? Probably,
otherwise I wouldn't have bothered answering ... *grin*
> Someone could totally teach a class on the definition of "kink,"
> though :p
in the room? So, instead it would have to be a class on the teachers
definition of kink, now, wouldn't it?
> Syd
Lord Percival
maymay
> Empirical evidence. Here is a "kink" event. Most of the topics
> both at
> the NY one and the Boston one were BDSM relative, or BDSM focused.
> Most
> of the people organizing things are tied, on one level or another to
> the
> BDSM crowd. In our culture's literature "kinky" often involves some
> element of BDSM, so, too in advertising, and even the cartoons we
> watch
> as children.
>
> *shrug* If it weren't, this whole discussion would never have
> happened.
> If you want to start redefining the usage of words, the concepts
> behind
> them, go ahead, but, realize you are trying to redefine, not define
> originally.
Are you saying that "kink" *originally* meant BDSM? If so, can you
provide a reference to this, or explain why the dictionary defines
kink differently than that, or why, as Syd pointed out, that "kink"
was a colloquialism for "cool"?
>> In my mind, kink is like a rectangle and BDSM is like a square. That
>> is to say, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.
>
> And sex, overall is a rhombus? Indeed. But, for most people, they
> only
> know the square that is BDSM, and the corner cases that are your
> rectangles, often get ignored in the generalizations.
So, are you suggesting that a KinkForAll should focus on
generalizations while ignoring edge cases? Why?
>> BDSM can be kinky but kink isn't limited to BDSM.
>
> Not limited, yes, but, to most people that I've run into, and that
> I've
> talked to, found, met with, taught, learned from, etc. They do tend
> to
> be more of an onto relationship rather than a one-directional mapping.
Earlier you cited "empirical evidence" for why you believe
"kink=BDSM". Is your "empirical evidence" based on "most people that
you've run into, …talked to…" etc? If so, would you say that you had
any influence in shaping those situations? If you did, would you call
that evidence objective, or empirical? I'm uncertain I follow your
logic in all this.
>> As a question, what
>> might you call a loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one
>> another and kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on
>> sex in which the man is the penetrated partner?
>
> Or the woman? For some that tenderness still contains D/s (the center
> of BDSM) activities, and for others, it's just part of their normal
> activities. Ask Strapon-Jo about her point of view on it, and you'll
> probably get more information than I could ever convey. But, even in
> this choice, this activity, some might see BDSM in it, others might
> not.
So, are you saying that some might not see kink in it, and that others
would? And if so, based on your earlier point about corner cases,
which of these scenarios would you describe as the corner case, and
which isn't? Again, I'm running into a lot of problems trying to
understand your mental model here, because it seems logically
inconsistent to me.
> I'd suggest (to take an example) that you look at Swinging as a kink
> that is non-BDSM, but, even there, you have to be careful, because,
> if I
> recall my history properly, most of the het-BDSM is descendant from
> the
> Swinging scene, in this culture, and often historically, as well.
Do you think that, given this, swinging can be accurately described as
being beyond the scope of BDSM but still within the realm of something
to discuss at a KinkForAll event?
>> What about the way many people talk
>> about scheduling time for sex and other intimate acts with one
>> another? I mean, *scheduling* time for sex? Sounds kinky to me
>> because
>> it's certainly beyond the scope of conventional wisdom that heralds
>> sex as decidedly spontaneous.
>
> Actually, if you talk to many sex therapists, you have it backward.
> Unscheduled sex is often considered the non-normal, and the kinky,
> and,
> therefore scary. Whereas, having it on a certain, well-known
> schedule,
> one can do one's duty, and not worry about it the rest of the time.
Define your use of schedule. "Three times a week" is not the same as
"tonight, at 6 PM." Are you saying that therapists largely agree that
most people schedule sex to happen at specific times, or are you
saying that therapists agree there is a particular pattern than most
people fall into to perform sexual activity in their relationships.
Which of these would you say, or are you saying that therapists would
say, is the abnormal case? Does that make the other case "kinky"?
>> I also wonder, *when* did kink become inextricably associated with
>> BDSM "in many people's minds,"
>
> I'd say, in our culture, after the 60s. In the 60s "kink" was more
> tied
> to orgies and swinging. But it's changed over time.
Do orgies and swinging necessarily involve BDSM today? Also, would you
say that someone who knows little about orgies, swinging, or BDSM, is
likely to think that all three of these activities as similar to one
another? If so, and if they describe one of these as "kinky", why
would they not describe the other similarly?
> I'm not talking about my mind, at the moment, I'm talking about the
> cultural trends we seem to be trying to buck to get an unconference,
> to
> actually have a hidden agenda, as opposed to a gathering of those
> self-selected to be at it.
Do we have a hidden agenda? I thought this thread made our agenda very
clear: expanding the diversity of participants. What do you see as
hidden about this goal?
>> Do you read "KinkForAll" as "KinkForAll events for everyone", as in,
>> everyone will feel welcome like they *should* participate in a
>> KinkForAll event?
>
> That seems to be what the folks pushing for kink!=BDSM are looking
> for.
What are you looking for?
>> Or do you read "KinkForAll" as "open up kink for
>> everyone who wants it."?
>
> Isn't that the same thing? I mean don't we want everyone to be a
> participant? If not, why are we trying to bring everyone in from all
> walks of life, and insisting that everyone who comes in, is a
> participant, not a tourist?
No, they're not the same thing at all. I do *not* want everyone to be
a participant, I only want *the people who want to be participants* to
be participants. I would find it immoral to try to impose that
everyone, regardless of personal choice or characteristics,
participates in a KinkForAll event.
>> Also, if "KinkForSome" is a path some people
>> are thinking about, my next questions would be, "who is the some, and
>> why"?
>
> A self-selected group, who are willing to come out and present, or
> visit
> the presentations that are put on. I'd think that was self-evident
> from
> the strictures of BarCamp and the writings on KinkForAll and other
> unconferences like the Grue that I've been a part of.
Yes, exactly. And what characteristics would you say are essential for
this self-selected group to have? Would you say that they have to be a
certain age? Would you say they have to be employed? Would you say
they have to be self-described as kinky? Would you say they have to be
virgins?
>> For example, if this group of people continue to self-generate
>> more elements that are similar to elements that already exist, what
>> would be the benefits that come of it? Would you be proud of those
>> things?
>
> The benefit would be for those who wish to go to it, otherwise why
> would
> they volunteer their time and effort to try and make it happen. As
> for
> pride, I try to have pride in everything I turn my hand to. Don't
> you?
Yes, I do too. I like taking pride in my work. One of the things I
take pride in is the breadth of different topics we've already managed
to cover at KinkForAll events in the past. That's just one reason why
I'm so intent on broadening that scope. What are you proud of about
KinkForAll?
> I know it sounds simplistic, but ... often things are self-selecting.
> I, personally, tend to steer clear from team sports, so news about
> team
> sports, and the fields they are playing on, often don't come my
> way. I
> don't choose to spend effort on it, so ... I don't necessarily know
> there is a fund-raiser to save the local soccer fields, nor do I
> really
> care. But, I do know when there is a fund-raiser to help a BDSM
> family,
> who, due to circumstances (car broken into, fire, etc) have had big
> losses, and I do devote my time to such causes. Because I self-select
> for where my interest is.
So are you saying that your interest is solely BDSM? If so, what
attracted you to KinkForAll? Would you say it was the existence of
BDSM-related content?
> Unlike a normal conference, which is set up by people, for a specific
> cause, and with advertising for what that cause might be, who might be
> coming to promote it, and the like, an unconference is what the people
> who want to come, make of it. Artificially trying to change,
> restrict,
> or influence that, makes it a conference that is masquerading as an
> unconference, with hidden agendas, and it is no longer an effort of
> all
> who are involved, but a (possibly secret) sub-group that are pushing a
> particular agenda.
Hmm. So what you're saying is that an unconference can't have an
agenda, because then it's a conference. Do you think that "talking
about kink" is an agenda? If so, would you have been happier if the
event were called "ForAll."
On that note, what would you call PublicMediaCamp[0], CupcakeCamp[1],
or WordCamp[2]? These are all self-described BarCamp-style
unconferences that are similar, but not identical, to KinkForAll.
Would you say they are also using the term unconference incorrectly?
Would you perhaps say that they have agendas, as well?
You're making some broad-reaching claims here that I sense you may not
have thought all the way through….
>>> Just some thoughts,
>>> Lord Percival, Kink instructor for over 20 years.
>>
>> Percival, I found your signature interesting. You call yourself a
>> "Kink instructor" here, and earlier in your email you said that
>> "kink=BDSM" in many people's minds.
>
> Indeed, interesting choice, no? Perhaps, I was trying to make a
> point?
Well, were you? If so, what point, because it may have been lost on
me, wouldn't you say? :)
>> I am curious: does that equation
>> exist in your mind?
>
> Does it exist in yours? What did you think of, when you saw "kink
> instructor"? I'm willing to bet that many people who read this
> thought
> BDSM instructor ...
No, as described above, kink does not equal BDSM in my mind. When I
saw "kink instructor" in your signature, I thought of our meeting at
ShibariCon when you showed Zac some cool stuff about the carotid
artery (sp?). That's why I asked. :)
>>> * rope (many aspects)
>>> * pressure point play
>>> * safety
>>> * impact play
>>> * sadism
>>> * the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc
>>> * building communities
>>> * many other things, this is getting too long.
>>
>> Which of these topics do you see as instructional in kink, and which
>> do you see as being instructional in BDSM?
>
> Which do you? I can see them in many different ways, and can teach
> them
> in many different ways. Usually (as people who have heard me teach
> can
> vouch for) I tailor my classes to what the audience wants and expects.
> I often ask them for such information before I teach.
I see "the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc" as BDSM,
specifically as being about the DS in that acronym. I also see
"sadism" as being about BDSM, specifically the S. I would *expect*
that "impact play" is also about BDSM, but that's because of my
familiarity with the BDSM community's terminology. Both "impact" and
"play," and especially when combined, are often used to indicate
activities such as flogging, punching, whipping, paddling, etc, which
relate to the SM part of the BDSM acronym.
So of these 7 topics you listed, I see 3 as being explicitly BDSM-
focused, which is just under half. This is one reason why I got the
impression that you are a pretty BDSM-oriented instructor. Would you
say that my deductions here are unreasonable?
You also cleverly dodged my question, which I'm still interested in
hearing an answer to, by the way. :)
On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:55 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
> there are hundreds of thousands of "kink" sites that
> are BDSM. I'm back to "many folks, kink=BDSM".
Um…right. Isn't that what we're getting at? The fact that "many folks"
think that "kink=BDSM" is the crux of this whole thread. I don't think
anyone is disagreeing with that statement, right?
>> I've wanted to get an account for ages
>> since I both love meticulous record keeping and find the site's drive
>> towards opaque information silos and away from publicly shareable
>> social data interesting.
>
> Interesting kink! Share more about it, please? *grin* From what I'm
> seeing you are putting a lot of Power Exchange into the calendar, and
> control of the calendar. Which, again, in my mind Power Exchange is a
> subset of D/s. Which is part of the BDSM umbrella. Hrm ...
> interesting, no?
I absolutely put a lot of power into calendaring data! Are you
familiar with the phrase "knowledge is power"? If so, would you
consider data important to have in order to acquire knowledge?
You make a really good point here. You bring up power exchange in a
broader context than sex. Specifically, you've tied my interest in
data aggregation with power dynamics in a way that I find really
awesome. This is precisely why I consider my interest in calendaring
kinky. In fact, I have what I call a "Sex Tally" calendar, which I use
to keep records of how many times I orgasm and what it was like (along
with other sexual info) that I can share with my current partner. She
enters similar information on her account on the same calendar. Since
we are in a long-distance relationship, doing this keeps us more
connected.
Now, would you describe this as fitting into the umbrella of BDSM, or
would you say that it's kinky?
More to the point, would you say that discussing these things,
including the intersection of power exchange with calendaring data, is
appropriate or not for a KinkForAll event?
>> Which also brings up the earlier point you
>> made, Philip, that many communities of people are not vocal about
>> their sexuality. Bedposted is a great example of a neat site that is
>> absolutely silent in terms of the information it gives an individual
>> user about other individual users, far less the public.
>
> If they are not willing to drag their personal "kinks" out into the
> public, in the relative anonymity of the 'Net, why would we think they
> would be willing to do so at a KinkForAll event, where they have to be
> linked to it, very ostentatiously, and possibly preserved on film, on
> the internet, for 20 minutes going on about their particular bent?
> Especially if they want to be accepted by mainstream society, in a
> position of responsibility at some point?
>
>> Given that, do you think it would be a good idea for us, while having
>> these "diversity" discussions, and "defining kink" discussions[0], to
>> consider ourselves largely ignorant of people who are not as vocal as
>> we are? (I am trying to do this on a personal level, at least.)
>
> Indeed, except, if we yank them out of their comfort-zones, and drag
> them to a place they don't want to be, do we expect them to be
> enthusiastic about it?
Huh. Do you feel that people who have shared their kinks at a
KinkForAll event have "dragged" them into public view? Or are you
suggesting that we are trying to drag or "yank" people out of their
comfort zone? Furthermore, are you suggesting that KinkForAll
participants necessarily have a desire to be accepted by mainstream
society? I.e., would it be okay for a KinkForAll participant not to
desire mainstream acceptance?
I am wondering how the things you've asked here relate to your
understanding of a self-selecting group, since what you're saying
seems contradictory to that.
> Keep them in mind, certainly, and if one of them
> comes forth, I'm sure all of us would be delighted to help them,
> welcome
> them, and hear what they have to say. But forcing it? It sits wrong
> with me. It goes against the whole concept of consent.
Yeah, I agree that forcing people to come to a KinkForAll event would
be out of line with the concept of consent. How would you consensually
create an environment that welcomes as many people as possible? I
think that's what this entire thread is about.
On Sep 30, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> Someone could totally teach a class on the definition of "kink,"
> though :p
>
> Syd
Someone did: http://followsthesun.com/?p=359
Someone else could always teach another one, though. :)
maymay
your emails, Percival. Can you help me understand by explaining this:
On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:37 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
> Empirical evidence. Here is a "kink" event. Most of the topics
> both at
> the NY one and the Boston one were BDSM relative, or BDSM focused.
> Most
> of the people organizing things are tied, on one level or another to
> the
> BDSM crowd. In our culture's literature "kinky" often involves some
> element of BDSM, so, too in advertising, and even the cartoons we
> watch
> as children.
>
> *shrug* If it weren't, this whole discussion would never have
> happened.
> If you want to start redefining the usage of words, the concepts
> behind
> them, go ahead, but, realize you are trying to redefine, not define
> originally.
> […]
>> I also wonder, *when* did kink become inextricably associated with
>> BDSM "in many people's minds,"
>
> I'd say, in our culture, after the 60s. In the 60s "kink" was more
> tied
> to orgies and swinging. But it's changed over time.
If, in our culture, kink became inextricably associated with BDSM in
most people's minds in the 60's but before then it was more tied to
orgies and swinging, how can we, in defining kink as NOT equal to
BDSM, be redefining kink differently from an original definition that
did not include BDSM?
The Distinguished ...
teaching engagements, perhaps.
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 15:05 -0700, maymay wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:37 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>
> > Empirical evidence. Here is a "kink" event. Most of the topics
> > both at
> > the NY one and the Boston one were BDSM relative, or BDSM focused.
> > Most
> > of the people organizing things are tied, on one level or another to
> > the
> > BDSM crowd. In our culture's literature "kinky" often involves some
> > element of BDSM, so, too in advertising, and even the cartoons we
> > watch
> > as children.
> >
> > *shrug* If it weren't, this whole discussion would never have
> > happened.
> > If you want to start redefining the usage of words, the concepts
> > behind
> > them, go ahead, but, realize you are trying to redefine, not define
> > originally.
>
> Are you saying that "kink" *originally* meant BDSM?
No, I'm saying that now, amongst the group of people you are reaching,
the box of kink predominantly seems to match the box of BDSM. I'm not
talking about definitions (but thank you, Sarah, for those), I'm not
talking about "for everyone", I'm talking about a preponderance of
evidence and a trend. I don't know how more clearly to say that. Your
audience seems to equate the two of them. That's who you are reaching.
That's all. Trying to say: "No, this means THIS, because I've stated
it." or "We have to change what this means because I want it to mean
THIS for everyone." is what I'm arguing against.
> If so, can you
> provide a reference to this, or explain why the dictionary defines
> kink differently than that, or why, as Syd pointed out, that "kink"
> was a colloquialism for "cool"?
Sure, in my Machinist handbook, a kink is an unintentional bend, and it
seems to me that you are bending (perhaps unintentionally, I'll give you
the benefit of the doubt) everything I'm saying away from what I'm
actually saying, so you have kinked the conversation.
Or, perhaps I might point out, once again, that the evidence that is
before you, the talks offered at the two already happened, seem to bear
my point quite nicely. But, since that's a fact that you don't seem to
want to acknowledge, perhaps, it is fruitless to pursue this.
> >> In my mind, kink is like a rectangle and BDSM is like a square. That
> >> is to say, a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square.
> >
> > And sex, overall is a rhombus? Indeed. But, for most people, they
> > only
> > know the square that is BDSM, and the corner cases that are your
> > rectangles, often get ignored in the generalizations.
>
> So, are you suggesting that a KinkForAll should focus on
> generalizations while ignoring edge cases? Why?
No, again you have missed, entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that
most people that the KinkForAll concept has reached, only know the
square, and forcing them all into changing their minds, and forcing us
all into those little corners that don't fit, perhaps follows your
particular agenda, but does not seem to be in the spirit of an
unconference, which is thrown together by the people who show up, by the
participants that choose to identify, by self-selecting their way into
the group. Some people were turned away, by their own choice. Because
the _preponderance_ the majority were interested in some things, and
therefore, with an untillered barge, it goes where the current leads,
regardless if some of the people on the barge wanted to go upstream.
Upstream takes effort, you see.
If _you_ want to give a talk, on how bootlaces are made, sure, go ahead.
People might even be interested and attend. But, if you insist that the
people who want to do talks on why inserting one's fist in another's
bits is the cat's pajamas, well ... the conference supports that as
well. And if more people want to talk about what they want to do to
other people's bits, than your particular skill at lucet-work ... why,
at an unconference are they wrong?
> >> BDSM can be kinky but kink isn't limited to BDSM.
> >
> > Not limited, yes, but, to most people that I've run into, and that
> > I've
> > talked to, found, met with, taught, learned from, etc. They do tend
> > to
> > be more of an onto relationship rather than a one-directional mapping.
>
> Earlier you cited "empirical evidence" for why you believe
> "kink=BDSM". Is your "empirical evidence" based on "most people that
> you've run into, …talked to…" etc?
Isnt' that what empirical evidence means? Hrm ... my dictionary (since
you like dictionary definitions so much) seems to define it as:
"Empirical research is research that bases its findings on direct or
indirect observation as its test of reality."
So, yes, my evidence is specifically based on who I interact with.
> If so, would you say that you had
> any influence in shaping those situations?
Every particle interacts with every other particle. Some in a more
influential way, some less.
> If you did, would you call
> that evidence objective, or empirical? I'm uncertain I follow your
> logic in all this.
I never called it objective, I called it empirical. It's right there in
the quote. In case you missed it.
> >> As a question, what
> >> might you call a loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one
> >> another and kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on
> >> sex in which the man is the penetrated partner?
> >
> > Or the woman? For some that tenderness still contains D/s (the center
> > of BDSM) activities, and for others, it's just part of their normal
> > activities. Ask Strapon-Jo about her point of view on it, and you'll
> > probably get more information than I could ever convey. But, even in
> > this choice, this activity, some might see BDSM in it, others might
> > not.
>
> So, are you saying that some might not see kink in it, and that others
> would?
No, I'm saying that folks would see that as BDSM (mapped to kink), or
not strange at all (not BDSM or kink).
> And if so, based on your earlier point about corner cases,
> which of these scenarios would you describe as the corner case, and
> which isn't?
I'm sorry, your point on corner cases, I believe? My point (in case you
have forgotten) is that people tend to equate kink to BDSM. And you
have described a lovely D/s, power exchange scene (which is BDSM) in
your attempt to give an example of "kink-not-BDSM".
> Again, I'm running into a lot of problems trying to
> understand your mental model here, because it seems logically
> inconsistent to me.
It's fairly straightforward, and logical. Most of the community you are
reaching tends to equate kink to BDSM. Trying to change that, trying to
re-steer a rudderless barge, makes your unconference a reeducation
conference. That's all.
>
> > I'd suggest (to take an example) that you look at Swinging as a kink
> > that is non-BDSM, but, even there, you have to be careful, because,
> > if I
> > recall my history properly, most of the het-BDSM is descendant from
> > the
> > Swinging scene, in this culture, and often historically, as well.
>
> Do you think that, given this, swinging can be accurately described as
> being beyond the scope of BDSM but still within the realm of something
> to discuss at a KinkForAll event?
Sure, and so could bootlace making. But was it? Either of them?
Voluntarily, by the people participating, unforced? No. Hence my
point.
> >> What about the way many people talk
> >> about scheduling time for sex and other intimate acts with one
> >> another? I mean, *scheduling* time for sex? Sounds kinky to me
> >> because
> >> it's certainly beyond the scope of conventional wisdom that heralds
> >> sex as decidedly spontaneous.
> >
> > Actually, if you talk to many sex therapists, you have it backward.
> > Unscheduled sex is often considered the non-normal, and the kinky,
> > and,
> > therefore scary. Whereas, having it on a certain, well-known
> > schedule,
> > one can do one's duty, and not worry about it the rest of the time.
>
> Define your use of schedule.
I thought I had.
> "Three times a week" is not the same as
> "tonight, at 6 PM."
Three times a week is not a schedule. It's an approximation of an
arrangement.
> Are you saying that therapists largely agree that
> most people schedule sex to happen at specific times,
No, I'm saying that therapists have found that people are more
uncomfortable when sex is not set to a particular schedule, to happen at
a specific time. That people who seek out therapists, find that their
appreciation of a schedule is a comfort, and the lack thereof is what is
scary for them. Sex might happen at any time! Scary! Is that more
clear?
> or are you
> saying that therapists agree there is a particular pattern than most
> people fall into to perform sexual activity in their relationships.
I'm not saying anything at all about what therapists agree on, or
anything, I'm saying what they have reported as statistical findings.
Remember, that their statistical findings are about people who both
already have problems with their relationships, and have sought council
on the same.
Anything else is you trying to put words in my mouth.
> Which of these would you say, or are you saying that therapists would
> say, is the abnormal case? Does that make the other case "kinky"?
I'm not calling anything abnormal. You seem to be, though.
> >> I also wonder, *when* did kink become inextricably associated with
> >> BDSM "in many people's minds,"
> >
> > I'd say, in our culture, after the 60s. In the 60s "kink" was more
> > tied
> > to orgies and swinging. But it's changed over time.
>
> Do orgies and swinging necessarily involve BDSM today?
No more or less than they did in the 60's, from my experience of them.
But, again, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand? This
isn't the 1960s. And people currently don't think of kink being orgies
or group sex, or swinging. And today is when KinkForAll is being held.
> Also, would you
> say that someone who knows little about orgies, swinging, or BDSM, is
> likely to think that all three of these activities as similar to one
> another? If so, and if they describe one of these as "kinky", why
> would they not describe the other similarly?
They might have, in the 1960's, and I'll leave you to explore that
possibility. Unfortunately or fortunately we are talking about late in
the aughts, when KinkForAll is being held, where kink seems to indicate
to the large majority of the target audience you are trying to read a
strong if not complete correspondence with BDSM.
> > I'm not talking about my mind, at the moment, I'm talking about the
> > cultural trends we seem to be trying to buck to get an unconference,
> > to
> > actually have a hidden agenda, as opposed to a gathering of those
> > self-selected to be at it.
>
> Do we have a hidden agenda? I thought this thread made our agenda very
> clear: expanding the diversity of participants. What do you see as
> hidden about this goal?
It's hidden from the unconference. It makes the concept of
self-organizing by those who choose to participate no longer valid, and
makes it an organized conference with a specific agenda. Which isn't
bad (I organize or help organize agenda driven conferences all the time
as well as working with several unconference groups, but I do keep them
separate, because they are very different in nature) but, I thought not
the goal of this unconference.
> >> Do you read "KinkForAll" as "KinkForAll events for everyone", as in,
> >> everyone will feel welcome like they *should* participate in a
> >> KinkForAll event?
> >
> > That seems to be what the folks pushing for kink!=BDSM are looking
> > for.
>
> What are you looking for?
Me? I'm not looking for anything, beyond allowing a self-organising
system to be allowed to self-organize. Because I've seen such work, and
succeed, and I've seen some try and fail, and, the one common element in
the failures of unconferences is someone with an agenda, however noble,
pushing that, as opposed to simply letting the unconference be it's own
identity, it's own version of Conway's "Game of Life".
What are you looking for? Success? Or your particular agenda?
> >> Or do you read "KinkForAll" as "open up kink for
> >> everyone who wants it."?
> >
> > Isn't that the same thing? I mean don't we want everyone to be a
> > participant? If not, why are we trying to bring everyone in from all
> > walks of life, and insisting that everyone who comes in, is a
> > participant, not a tourist?
>
> No, they're not the same thing at all. I do *not* want everyone to be
> a participant, I only want *the people who want to be participants* to
> be participants. I would find it immoral to try to impose that
> everyone, regardless of personal choice or characteristics,
> participates in a KinkForAll event.
And yet, here you are forcing the program to attract people who
otherwise did not want to be participants to participate. You are also
asking those who do participate to only do so in certain ways, to limit
themselves from sharing what they wish to share. And yet, that
imposition is what you call immoral. So, perhaps you should start
looking a bit deeper at your motivations, and your intentions, and how
they will effect what you just called immoral.
> >> Also, if "KinkForSome" is a path some people
> >> are thinking about, my next questions would be, "who is the some, and
> >> why"?
> >
> > A self-selected group, who are willing to come out and present, or
> > visit
> > the presentations that are put on. I'd think that was self-evident
> > from
> > the strictures of BarCamp and the writings on KinkForAll and other
> > unconferences like the Grue that I've been a part of.
>
> Yes, exactly. And what characteristics would you say are essential for
> this self-selected group to have? Would you say that they have to be a
> certain age? Would you say they have to be employed? Would you say
> they have to be self-described as kinky? Would you say they have to be
> virgins?
I would not say there are any essential characteristics. Hence
self-selecting. You are the one putting strictures on what the
characteristics are. You are the one insisting on a certain balance of
participants and panels, and limiting what might or might not be said.
Why?
Answer that question for yourself, and you might get to the point that
I've been trying to make.
> >> For example, if this group of people continue to self-generate
> >> more elements that are similar to elements that already exist, what
> >> would be the benefits that come of it? Would you be proud of those
> >> things?
> >
> > The benefit would be for those who wish to go to it, otherwise why
> > would
> > they volunteer their time and effort to try and make it happen. As
> > for
> > pride, I try to have pride in everything I turn my hand to. Don't
> > you?
>
> Yes, I do too. I like taking pride in my work. One of the things I
> take pride in is the breadth of different topics we've already managed
> to cover at KinkForAll events in the past. That's just one reason why
> I'm so intent on broadening that scope. What are you proud of about
> KinkForAll?
Me? I'm proud I can take part in making an unconference happen, without
trying to bias, limit, or steer it, beyond what the various participants
choose to do. I'm proud that, having found a square-shaped hole, I'm
not trying to pound a non-square rectangle or a non-square rhomboid
through it. I'm proud that people I count as my friends took the time
to share resources, and step forward with their time and their efforts
to bring such a fragile meme to life. And I'm proud of my efforts in
trying to convince you that it is alive, don't try to grab it's first
breaths, and force it to breath the way you want it to breath. Let it
live, let it grow to be what it is, as opposed to saying, "you were born
for a secret purpose, while you don't reveal such purpose at the moment,
here is what you must do."
> > I know it sounds simplistic, but ... often things are self-selecting.
> > I, personally, tend to steer clear from team sports, so news about
> > team
> > sports, and the fields they are playing on, often don't come my
> > way. I
> > don't choose to spend effort on it, so ... I don't necessarily know
> > there is a fund-raiser to save the local soccer fields, nor do I
> > really
> > care. But, I do know when there is a fund-raiser to help a BDSM
> > family,
> > who, due to circumstances (car broken into, fire, etc) have had big
> > losses, and I do devote my time to such causes. Because I self-select
> > for where my interest is.
>
> So are you saying that your interest is solely BDSM?
If you actually read my words, the only way you could reach that
conclusion, is if either you are trying to bait me, or you are
projecting onto me what you find uncomfortable in yourself.
> If so, what
> attracted you to KinkForAll? Would you say it was the existence of
> BDSM-related content?
And these follow-on questions show that even more, because you presume
the answer to your first missed conjecture to be "yes".
To be completely honest, what attracted me to KinkForAll was the thought
of another unconference experiment, in an area where I had personal
interest. Non-mainstream sex and sexuality. When I recognized a number
of the folks putting in pre-volunteer time, I thought it would be worthy
for me to do so, as well, despite the unfortunate (from my point of
view) selection of the time. I worked hard to help people try and keep
the schedule, even though I knew I would not, personally, benefit from
it. Why would I do that? Because it's my kink? *grin* No.
> > Unlike a normal conference, which is set up by people, for a specific
> > cause, and with advertising for what that cause might be, who might be
> > coming to promote it, and the like, an unconference is what the people
> > who want to come, make of it. Artificially trying to change,
> > restrict,
> > or influence that, makes it a conference that is masquerading as an
> > unconference, with hidden agendas, and it is no longer an effort of
> > all
> > who are involved, but a (possibly secret) sub-group that are pushing a
> > particular agenda.
>
> Hmm. So what you're saying is that an unconference can't have an
> agenda, because then it's a conference. Do you think that "talking
> about kink" is an agenda? If so, would you have been happier if the
> event were called "ForAll."
Did you read the whole piece on the wiki about why the name was chosen?
If so, why are you questioning it?
Talking about kink is not an agenda, it's a vague, amorphous semi-goal
that is hoped to be achieved. Saying that, when talking about kink, we
have to include a percentage of talking about boot-lace making, because,
someone, somewhere thinks that's kinky, is an agenda.
If someone looks at the presentations and says "That might be someone's
kink, but it's not my kink, and I'm not comfortable or interested." They
have two rational choices. They can either start participating, and
bring up their kink, or they can go away, and not be bothered. You seem
to want to force one of those two choices. Why, I'm not quite sure.
Now, of course, you are going to turn it back to me. What do I want? I
want the people who make the choice to talk about their particular kink,
of their own volition, with no hidden agenda guiding their hand, to be
able to talk about their particular kink, and, other folks who are
interested, to show up and participate with said talking. And I want
those people who are not comfortable, not entirely sanguine about what
they might be talking about, to have the option not to do so, to not
even show up, to show up, and turn away, because it's not their thing.
Why do I want that? Because that's how a not-pre-organized unconference
is supposed to work. That's how you get a self-selected,
self-organizing system that might survive, and might become something
worthy.
There are conferences on just about everything, under the sun. If you
want a conference on left-shoe-polishers, but not right-shoe-polishers,
I'm sure such a thing can be created, run, and be successful. It will
please the left-shoe-polishers to no end, I expect. But, if you start
insisting that a sandal is the same thing as a thigh-high boot to them,
they are going to look at you funny, and, if you do so in such a way,
that you divide the community, just after their first successful
conference, there might never be a second one.
On the other hand, if, 10 years down the road, this nice, solid,
well-run left-shoe-polishing conference wants to experiment with a track
on plastics, and should they be polished, it might be an experiment that
works, or fails miserably, but it will probably not cripple the
conference.
> On that note, what would you call PublicMediaCamp[0], CupcakeCamp[1],
> or WordCamp[2]? These are all self-described BarCamp-style
> unconferences that are similar, but not identical, to KinkForAll.
> Would you say they are also using the term unconference incorrectly?
> Would you perhaps say that they have agendas, as well?
I would not, from the brief perusal that I've had of them, but I'm not
in their communities, so I couldn't say for sure. If you are suggesting
the hyperbole that "because there is a descriptive word in their name or
goal, they therefore have an agenda" then you are arguing speciously.
If, instead you are saying that some one, or small group, inside
CupCakeCamp is forcing vanilla frosting on white cake to be a major part
of their next CupCakeCamp, because, well, with all the other
alternatives, it is underrepresented ... then, yes, I would say there is
a hidden agenda.
> You're making some broad-reaching claims here that I sense you may not
> have thought all the way through….
I turn that sentence back on you. You are making some broad-reaching
changes that I sense you might not have thought all the way through, and
are actually in contradiction with yourself over several points.
Perhaps you need to take some time to examine them in less personal
lights.
> >>> Just some thoughts,
> >>> Lord Percival, Kink instructor for over 20 years.
> >>
> >> Percival, I found your signature interesting. You call yourself a
> >> "Kink instructor" here, and earlier in your email you said that
> >> "kink=BDSM" in many people's minds.
> >
> > Indeed, interesting choice, no? Perhaps, I was trying to make a
> > point?
>
> Well, were you? If so, what point, because it may have been lost on
> me, wouldn't you say? :)
Indeed, entirely lost on you. But, perhaps, not on the other people.
If it was lost on you, why? Did you notice how I signed my other
communiques? Did you notice that this one was deliberately different?
Did you also notice that I, indeed, also have a broader definition of
Kink from the people we are discussing and I was addressing that, which
is how I noticed the narrowness of their inclinations? Or are you
simply so fixed in your mind-set that, even something so out of pattern
didn't cause you to think, and just to react, that there might be
something wrong with the mind-set?
> >> I am curious: does that equation
> >> exist in your mind?
> >
> > Does it exist in yours? What did you think of, when you saw "kink
> > instructor"? I'm willing to bet that many people who read this
> > thought
> > BDSM instructor ...
>
> No, as described above, kink does not equal BDSM in my mind. When I
> saw "kink instructor" in your signature, I thought of our meeting at
> ShibariCon when you showed Zac some cool stuff about the carotid
> artery (sp?). That's why I asked. :)
Indeed, nor in mine. Which is why it is there.
> >>> * rope (many aspects)
> >>> * pressure point play
> >>> * safety
> >>> * impact play
> >>> * sadism
> >>> * the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc
> >>> * building communities
> >>> * many other things, this is getting too long.
> >>
> >> Which of these topics do you see as instructional in kink, and which
> >> do you see as being instructional in BDSM?
> >
> > Which do you? I can see them in many different ways, and can teach
> > them
> > in many different ways. Usually (as people who have heard me teach
> > can
> > vouch for) I tailor my classes to what the audience wants and expects.
> > I often ask them for such information before I teach.
>
> I see "the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc" as BDSM,
> specifically as being about the DS in that acronym.
Indeed, but that is the one I hesitated the longest on putting up.
Because it is such a tangent to sexuality, I wasn't sure it belonged.
> I also see
> "sadism" as being about BDSM, specifically the S. I would *expect*
> that "impact play" is also about BDSM, but that's because of my
> familiarity with the BDSM community's terminology. Both "impact" and
> "play," and especially when combined, are often used to indicate
> activities such as flogging, punching, whipping, paddling, etc, which
> relate to the SM part of the BDSM acronym.
>
> So of these 7 topics you listed, I see 3 as being explicitly BDSM-
> focused, which is just under half. This is one reason why I got the
> impression that you are a pretty BDSM-oriented instructor. Would you
> say that my deductions here are unreasonable?
Yes. Just under half? That's not even a majority. It means I'm well
versed in many things, some of which are BDSM some of which are not.
In the Paris Report (authored by Ilona Paris) 1/3rd of the people
surveyed indicated that there was abuse in their childhood. Which means
that 2/3rds did not. Does that mean that the Scene is made up of
survivors of abuse?
The national statistic is better (5.8m children in 2007 were reported to
be involved in abuse, out of the 73.7m children in the US, (of course,
if we figure no repeat customers, over the course of 18 years, the
entire population of children are abused, but that's what statistics
gets you) which is 12% instead of 33%) but, still while there are some
folks out there who are abused, it doesn't make the Scene about abuse.
Just because I do present on BDSM, doesn't mean that's all I present on.
So, yes, I'd say your deduction is somewhat unreasonable.
> You also cleverly dodged my question, which I'm still interested in
> hearing an answer to, by the way. :)
I did, mostly because, as I said elsewhere, I do tailor my classes to
the audience present. So ... they range.
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 1:55 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>
> > there are hundreds of thousands of "kink" sites that
> > are BDSM. I'm back to "many folks, kink=BDSM".
>
> Um…right. Isn't that what we're getting at? The fact that "many folks"
> think that "kink=BDSM" is the crux of this whole thread. I don't think
> anyone is disagreeing with that statement, right?
Alas, you seem to be.
> >> I've wanted to get an account for ages
> >> since I both love meticulous record keeping and find the site's drive
> >> towards opaque information silos and away from publicly shareable
> >> social data interesting.
> >
> > Interesting kink! Share more about it, please? *grin* From what I'm
> > seeing you are putting a lot of Power Exchange into the calendar, and
> > control of the calendar. Which, again, in my mind Power Exchange is a
> > subset of D/s. Which is part of the BDSM umbrella. Hrm ...
> > interesting, no?
>
> I absolutely put a lot of power into calendaring data! Are you
> familiar with the phrase "knowledge is power"? If so, would you
> consider data important to have in order to acquire knowledge?
I'm also familiar with the phrase "Knowledge is power, power corrupts,
go to school, be evil." But that's trite. If you control someone or
something, or someone or something controls you, voluntarily, it is
consensual power exchange, yes? And that is very D/s. Now, when one
scenes, it's often traditional (and in some places, required) to produce
a scene report. Which is knowledge of what went on in a person's head,
before, during and after a scene. That knowledge is most definitely
power.
> You make a really good point here. You bring up power exchange in a
> broader context than sex. Specifically, you've tied my interest in
> data aggregation with power dynamics in a way that I find really
> awesome.
*bows* My pleasure.
> This is precisely why I consider my interest in calendaring
> kinky. In fact, I have what I call a "Sex Tally" calendar, which I use
> to keep records of how many times I orgasm and what it was like (along
> with other sexual info) that I can share with my current partner. She
> enters similar information on her account on the same calendar. Since
> we are in a long-distance relationship, doing this keeps us more
> connected.
Now, that's hot. Aherm. Sorry. I'm getting distracted from the point.
What was it again? Right Sexuality. And letting it self-describe. I
think you've got quite the sexuality described here.
> Now, would you describe this as fitting into the umbrella of BDSM, or
> would you say that it's kinky?
Yes, and yes. And fun. And worthwhile to talk about. Maybe it can be
a talk for KinkForAll? Ways of keeping connected with a remote partner.
That might not be very BDSM at all, or might be very ... depending on
the bent of the audience, and the presenter.
> More to the point, would you say that discussing these things,
> including the intersection of power exchange with calendaring data, is
> appropriate or not for a KinkForAll event?
Most definitely, because it is something _you_ do, and you want to
participate in KinkForAll.
But, if there was someone who was doing this, who had no real interest
in the rest of what was going on, and felt that they didn't really want
to share it, but you insisted, because it would be diverse, and brought
them in specifically for it? That would be an entire other kettle of
fish. And _that_ is my point. If you want to do something, great! If
someone else does? Marvelous. If they don't feel like it, don't feel
comfortable in this self-organizing system? Then don't force it. Let
those who are comfortable speak and speak up. Let those who are not, be
who they are. Don't force it. Let it grow and live. It might surprise
you where it grows, but it will have grown there, without us hot-house
forcing the issue.
> >> Which also brings up the earlier point you
> >> made, Philip, that many communities of people are not vocal about
> >> their sexuality. Bedposted is a great example of a neat site that is
> >> absolutely silent in terms of the information it gives an individual
> >> user about other individual users, far less the public.
> >
> > If they are not willing to drag their personal "kinks" out into the
> > public, in the relative anonymity of the 'Net, why would we think they
> > would be willing to do so at a KinkForAll event, where they have to be
> > linked to it, very ostentatiously, and possibly preserved on film, on
> > the internet, for 20 minutes going on about their particular bent?
> > Especially if they want to be accepted by mainstream society, in a
> > position of responsibility at some point?
> >
> >> Given that, do you think it would be a good idea for us, while having
> >> these "diversity" discussions, and "defining kink" discussions[0], to
> >> consider ourselves largely ignorant of people who are not as vocal as
> >> we are? (I am trying to do this on a personal level, at least.)
> >
> > Indeed, except, if we yank them out of their comfort-zones, and drag
> > them to a place they don't want to be, do we expect them to be
> > enthusiastic about it?
>
> Huh. Do you feel that people who have shared their kinks at a
> KinkForAll event have "dragged" them into public view?
Not yet.
> Or are you
> suggesting that we are trying to drag or "yank" people out of their
> comfort zone?
By forcing things into a "diversity" channel, yes.
> Furthermore, are you suggesting that KinkForAll
> participants necessarily have a desire to be accepted by mainstream
> society?
Not in the least, just by the other folks gathered for that particular
KinkForAll.
> I.e., would it be okay for a KinkForAll participant not to
> desire mainstream acceptance?
Most definitely, that's part of why I agree with people who don't want
to be recorded, who want only to be accepted by the people they can see
and touch, not by the possible members of another gathering, known as
the Internet.
> I am wondering how the things you've asked here relate to your
> understanding of a self-selecting group, since what you're saying
> seems contradictory to that.
They relate, because this group should be allowed to be self-selecting.
Not forced in any direction. Toward _or_ away from any particular
ideal. That's the point of it, no?
> > Keep them in mind, certainly, and if one of them
> > comes forth, I'm sure all of us would be delighted to help them,
> > welcome
> > them, and hear what they have to say. But forcing it? It sits wrong
> > with me. It goes against the whole concept of consent.
>
> Yeah, I agree that forcing people to come to a KinkForAll event would
> be out of line with the concept of consent. How would you consensually
> create an environment that welcomes as many people as possible? I
> think that's what this entire thread is about.
And, as I keep saying, I don't think it should be "as many people as
possible", but, instead, "the people who are comfortable with the
concept of this group, and those willing to explore the possibility of
comfort" with "this group" defined as "the people who show up".
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 2:18 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
>
> > Someone could totally teach a class on the definition of "kink,"
> > though :p
> >
> > Syd
>
> Someone did: http://followsthesun.com/?p=359
>
> Someone else could always teach another one, though. :)
And we would get their impressions of it. Each to their own. Does
anyone want to? Then they should. *grin*
> Cheers,
> -maymay
> Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
> Community: http://KinkForAll.org
> Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
I do apologize for the length and the delay of my returning this, but I
wanted to think about it fully, and reply as a whole, instead of
snipping pieces here and there, as responses occurred to me.
I hope it comes across as a cohesive whole.
Lord Percival, the verbose
The Distinguished ...
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 15:15 -0700, maymay wrote:
> By the by, here's another logically inconsistent thing I've seen in
> your emails, Percival. Can you help me understand by explaining this:
I will always try.
Well ... I did say _after_ the 60's but ... I understand your question.
Yes, I believe we can redefine it. By "we" I mean the larger culture
and context within which we exist. But can does not mean it will be
easy, or even reasonable. There are many adverts we would have to
change, many people's usage, and education, and, perhaps in a decade or
three, of concerted, deliberate effort, we might be able to change it.
Do remember that the Mormon Church (who have some pretty stupendous
resources, and quite some drive) has been trying to get some similar
redefinitions through, and so have the folks opposing DOMA ... and they
are starting to get traction ...
Language and ideas are not fixed. But they change slowly, over time.
Is it worth the effort? That's for those who want to effect the change
to decide. And, I might be willing to lend a hand to the effort myself,
depending on what their agenda is.
> Cheers,
> -maymay
> Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
> Community: http://KinkForAll.org
> Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
Be well,
Lord Percival
maymay
I found your email extremely personally insulting. Among other things,
you directly called my actions immoral. As such, I hope that I have
successfully removed the bitterness and anger from the rest of this
email that its first draft contained. If I failed to do that, please
accept my apologies for showing you such distaste and I hope that this
introduction gives you some insight as to why that is so.
On Oct 7, 2009, at 1:47 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>> Are you saying that "kink" *originally* meant BDSM?
>
> No, I'm saying that now, amongst the group of people you are reaching,
> the box of kink predominantly seems to match the box of BDSM. […]
> I don't know how more clearly to say that. Your
> audience seems to equate the two of them. That's who you are
> reaching.
And I don't know how much more clearly I can say this, since I've said
so countless times already: My founding intent for KinkForAll had
nothing to do with specifically reaching a BDSM-inclined populace.
One of the unexpected benefits of KinkForAll is that it has
highlighted a deeply-entrenched misappropriation of the word "kink"
with which, in my view, the sexuality communities segregate themselves
from others in such a way that makes it less likely for them and their
activities to have a safe place to exist. This is something I feel a
visceral driving need to help change.
Amongst the people we have reached so far, BDSM is prevalent and, as
we've said before in this thread some number of times too numerous for
me to count now, *that's what we're trying to make more diverse.*
Otherwise, if that wasn't something some people, myself included,
think is important to do this thread wouldn't have existed. So your
point is understood but is markedly neither here nor there.
> That's all. Trying to say: "No, this means THIS, because I've stated
> it." or "We have to change what this means because I want it to mean
> THIS for everyone." is what I'm arguing against.
What I want is for different people to feel completely free to
communicate with one another—that's the whole point of having an
unconference like KinkForAll in the first place. I think that if
language is a barrier to this, one way to lower the barrier is to
create a deep understanding of the relevant words so that they can act
as carriers of shared understanding that can, hopefully, permeate to
everyone who wishes to communicate.
>> If so, can you
>> provide a reference to this, or explain why the dictionary defines
>> kink differently than that, or why, as Syd pointed out, that "kink"
>> was a colloquialism for "cool"?
>
> Sure, in my Machinist handbook, a kink is an unintentional bend, and
> it
> seems to me that you are bending (perhaps unintentionally, I'll give
> you
> the benefit of the doubt) everything I'm saying away from what I'm
> actually saying, so you have kinked the conversation.
Jeesus, *that's* not something that I would consider has anything to
do with BDSM, so you've shown me yet another example of why "kink
doesn't equal BDSM" perfectly. Thank you.
> Or, perhaps I might point out, once again, that the evidence that is
> before you, the talks offered at the two already happened, seem to
> bear
> my point quite nicely. But, since that's a fact that you don't seem
> to
> want to acknowledge, perhaps, it is fruitless to pursue this.
Percival, I don't know how you're continually misreading this: this
entire thread was born out of multiple people's acknowledgement that
BDSM is, sadly, an overwhelming influence at KinkForAll events and
this is a detriment to growing diversity. I find your claim that I
have failed to acknowledge this insulting.
>> So, are you suggesting that a KinkForAll should focus on
>> generalizations while ignoring edge cases? Why?
>
> No, again you have missed, entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that
> most people that the KinkForAll concept has reached, only know the
> square, and forcing them all into changing their minds, and forcing us
> all into those little corners that don't fit, perhaps follows your
> particular agenda
Percival, again, no one is calling for the abolishment of BDSM. Please
stop implying that we, or I, are. It is, again, personally insulting,
especially as someone who has most of his roots in the BDSM community.
> the majority were interested in some things, and
> therefore, with an untillered barge, it goes where the current leads,
> regardless if some of the people on the barge wanted to go upstream.
> Upstream takes effort, you see.
This thread is not about excluding BDSM, it is about including other
interests. And "all leaders are heretics."[0]
> if you insist that the
> people who want to do talks on why inserting one's fist in another's
> bits is the cat's pajamas, well ... the conference supports that as
> well. And if more people want to talk about what they want to do to
> other people's bits, than your particular skill at lucet-work ... why,
> at an unconference are they wrong?
Who's saying that they're wrong? Seriously, please stop putting words
in my mouth. It's distasteful. Again, no one is calling for the
abolishment of BDSM as a valid subject matter discussed at a
KinkForAll event.
A lack of other topics *is* something I see as a problem, so while
that might be an upstream battle, it's one I find important enough to
fight.
I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped painting me as having an
agenda that I don't and instead painted me as having the agenda that I
do have. I'm astoundingly transparent about my agendas. In case you
missed it, diversity is one of my agendas.
> yes, my evidence is specifically based on who I interact with.
>
>> If so, would you say that you had
>> any influence in shaping those situations?
>
> Every particle interacts with every other particle. Some in a more
> influential way, some less.
> […]
> I never called it objective
Thanks for clarifying that.
> you have described a lovely D/s, power exchange scene (which is
> BDSM) in
> your attempt to give an example of "kink-not-BDSM".
You put the D/s in the strap-on scene example, not me. Here's a
quotation of my example:
"loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one another and
kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on sex in which
the man is the penetrated partner"[1]
>> Do you think that, given this, swinging can be accurately described
>> as
>> being beyond the scope of BDSM but still within the realm of
>> something
>> to discuss at a KinkForAll event?
>
> Sure, and so could bootlace making. But was it? Either of them?
> Voluntarily, by the people participating, unforced? No. Hence my
> point.
And mine is that if we do not have diversity, we do not create a space
that includes unbarred freedom to feel comfortable talking about the
things someone different from who we are wants to discuss, which might
include bootlace making.
>> Do orgies and swinging necessarily involve BDSM today?
>
> No more or less than they did in the 60's, from my experience of them.
> But, again, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
> This
> isn't the 1960s. And people currently don't think of kink being
> orgies
> or group sex, or swinging. And today is when KinkForAll is being
> held.
No, Percival, people today do think of kink as possibly involving
orgies and group sex and swinging.[2]
You, with your blinders, and others with theirs, think "kink" means
what YOU do. Everyone else thinks kink is either what *they* do,
regardless of whether they think it is BDSM or not, or they think it
is something they would feel is unconventional to do, again,
regardless of whether they think it is BDSM or not.
> kink seems to indicate
> to the large majority of the target audience you are trying to read a
> strong if not complete correspondence with BDSM.
Again, please stop assuming who *my* "target audience" is.[3] Before
you make such remarks, please actually learn about what I'm trying to
do. Thanks.
>>> I'm not talking about my mind, at the moment, I'm talking about the
>>> cultural trends we seem to be trying to buck to get an unconference,
>>> to
>>> actually have a hidden agenda, as opposed to a gathering of those
>>> self-selected to be at it.
>>
>> Do we have a hidden agenda? I thought this thread made our agenda
>> very
>> clear: expanding the diversity of participants. What do you see as
>> hidden about this goal?
>
> It's hidden from the unconference.
This mailing list is public. I consider that not at all hidden.
KinkForAll Boston had a presentation about this list thread[4]. I
would consider that not hidden from the unconference.
> What are you looking for? Success? Or your particular agenda?
Once again I feel like a broken record because I do not feel like you
are listening to anything. This is the last email addressed to you,
Percival, in which I'll say it again:
What I want is for different people to be feel completely free to
communicate with one another.
> You are also
> asking those who do participate to only do so in certain ways, to
> limit
> themselves from sharing what they wish to share.
No one participating in this thread is creating restrictions on
KinkForAll such that BDSM cannot be discussed. Your assertion that I
am is, as you might have guessed by now, insulting.
>> Yes, exactly. And what characteristics would you say are essential
>> for
>> this self-selected group to have? Would you say that they have to
>> be a
>> certain age? Would you say they have to be employed? Would you say
>> they have to be self-described as kinky? Would you say they have to
>> be
>> virgins?
>
> I would not say there are any essential characteristics.
Then I believe you lack a great deal of understanding of the reality
in which you live, and on some level, I truly feel some pity for you.
> I'm proud I can take part in making an unconference happen, without
> trying to bias, limit, or steer it, beyond what the various
> participants
> choose to do. I'm proud that, having found a square-shaped hole, I'm
> not trying to pound a non-square rectangle or a non-square rhomboid
> through it.
I encourage you to take part in making KinkForAll Boston 2 happen. I
hope you one day participate at a KinkForAll event in person, instead
of solely on this mailing list, and are welcomed by the other
participants.
In the mean time, I'm going to do my part to participate in this self-
organization such that rhombus shaped pegs feel just as welcome as
square shaped ones. I encourage you to *also* help me make them
welcome here and become an active part of the community. If you don't
feel like doing this, then there are many other tasks and areas of the
KinkForAll community where your help would be similarly appreciated.
>> Hmm. So what you're saying is that an unconference can't have an
>> agenda, because then it's a conference. Do you think that "talking
>> about kink" is an agenda? If so, would you have been happier if the
>> event were called "ForAll."
>
> Did you read the whole piece on the wiki about why the name was
> chosen?
> If so, why are you questioning it?
Having had a hand in writing that piece, you know very well that I'm
not questioning it, I'm questioning *you* so I could figure out where
the hell you're coming from, yet your insistence on dodging direct
questions makes it difficult to do that.
> I want the people who make the choice to talk about their particular
> kink,
> of their own volition, with no hidden agenda guiding their hand, to be
> able to talk about their particular kink, and, other folks who are
> interested, to show up and participate with said talking. And I want
> those people who are not comfortable, not entirely sanguine about what
> they might be talking about, to have the option not to do so, to not
> even show up, to show up, and turn away, because it's not their thing.
That's exactly what I want only I'd also love it if people didn't just
talk about their kink, but also asked questions of other people's
kinks as well as bringing up topics that they found interesting and
related to their kink even if that topic wasn't in a silo of their kink.
I think we *almost* have that, which is wonderful. I think reactions
to KinkForAll unconferences such as Bitsy's partner's and like Sam
Benjamin's[5] shows us that we have some work to do before we can
claim to have achieved a wonderful environment in which people are
"able to talk about their particular kink," to use your words, or are
"completely free to communicate," to use mine. Again, hence this thread.
>> No, as described above, kink does not equal BDSM in my mind. When I
>> saw "kink instructor" in your signature, I thought of our meeting at
>> ShibariCon when you showed Zac some cool stuff about the carotid
>> artery (sp?). That's why I asked. :)
>
> Indeed, nor in mine. Which is why it is there.
Great. I hope you will help me show how varied and diverse kink is to
people who do not already think that it is.
>> I see "the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc" as BDSM,
>> specifically as being about the DS in that acronym.
>
> Indeed, but that is the one I hesitated the longest on putting up.
> Because it is such a tangent to sexuality, I wasn't sure it belonged.
KinkForAll was designed to be a perfect place where tangents that
begin at sexuality but end elsewhere can be discussed. I'm sorry that
this was not clear to you earlier. I hope it is now.
>> You also cleverly dodged my question, which I'm still interested in
>> hearing an answer to, by the way. :)
>
> I did, mostly because, as I said elsewhere, I do tailor my classes to
> the audience present. So ... they range.
I feel you have again dodged the question. In my opinion, Percival, it
is *you* who is hiding behind questions, not me, and the insinuation
you've made to the contrary is, again, personally insulting.
>> The fact that "many folks"
>> think that "kink=BDSM" is the crux of this whole thread. I don't
>> think
>> anyone is disagreeing with that statement, right?
>
> Alas, you seem to be.
Wow. Just…wow. I'm…flummoxed.
>> Now, would you describe [calendaring/scheduling sex] as fitting
>> into the umbrella of BDSM, or
>> would you say that it's kinky?
>
> Yes, and yes. And fun. And worthwhile to talk about. Maybe it can
> be
> a talk for KinkForAll?
Sure! I disagree with your conclusion that such activity necessarily
fits into the umbrella of BDSM, but so what? Come talk about it at
KinkForAll *because KinkForAll is not about a specific sexuality.*[6]
> But, if there was someone who was doing this, who had no real interest
> in the rest of what was going on, and felt that they didn't really
> want
> to share it, but you insisted, because it would be diverse, and
> brought
> them in specifically for it? That would be an entire other kettle of
> fish. And _that_ is my point. If you want to do something, great!
> If
> someone else does? Marvelous.
Gee, I hope people don't force people to do anything they don't want,
ever. I similarly hope you are not insinuating that I have done this,
because yet again, that would not only be incorrect, but also
personally insulting.
>> Or are you
>> suggesting that we are trying to drag or "yank" people out of their
>> comfort zone?
>
> By forcing things into a "diversity" channel, yes.
Ahhh, now I am beginning to see where your incorrect (and insulting)
assumptions have stemmed from. Sadly, I have no idea how to present
these concepts to you in a way that I am confident will not be
perceived by your internal filters as doing something you don't like.
Therefore, my conversation with you is over.
I will now stop conversing with you and will not interact with you
again until I either come up with a way to do so productively or
something else changes such that what I feel is productive
communication with you can happen again.
Until then,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://twitter.com/maymaym/status/4676828076
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/2ae6551aadde16ce/574a5c5662b63c2a#msg_850b7c1c2d99c17c
[2] http://maybemaimed.com/2007/12/14/an-exemplar-of-conservative-hypocrisy/
Specifically: "Grossman doesn’t miss the opportunity to lump all kinds
of sexual practices into one steaming pile of 'beware of dog!',
including threesomes and swinging, right up there with BDSM."
[3] http://maybemaimed.com/2009/05/03/bdsm-versus-kink-nobody-but-your-sex-partner-cares-how-you-fuck/
[4] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/KinkForAllBostonSchedule
[5] http://www.ivyleaguepornographer.com/archives/715
[6] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#IsthereanyspecificsexualityfocusatKinkForAll
The Distinguished ...
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 17:51 -0700, maymay wrote:
> Percival,
>
> I found your email extremely personally insulting.
I apologize for that. I, in no way, intended it to be insulting. I do
try to avoid insulting people with whom I'm enjoying discourse.
> Among other things,
> you directly called my actions immoral.
Actually, I simply asked if, according to the strictures _you_ set
forth, the actions _you_ are doing wouldn't be considered immoral.
That's all. I didn't set up the conditions, nor take the actions.
> As such, I hope that I have
> successfully removed the bitterness and anger from the rest of this
> email that its first draft contained.
Indeed, several drafts are often necessary, so that one gets the
meaning, without the emotion across. I always find myself doing so,
which is why, sometimes, it takes me time to respond.
> If I failed to do that, please
> accept my apologies for showing you such distaste and I hope that this
> introduction gives you some insight as to why that is so.
I completely understand. Thank you for putting the caveat in the
beginning, though.
> On Oct 7, 2009, at 1:47 PM, The Distinguished ... wrote:
>
> >> Are you saying that "kink" *originally* meant BDSM?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that now, amongst the group of people you are reaching,
> > the box of kink predominantly seems to match the box of BDSM. […]
> > I don't know how more clearly to say that. Your
> > audience seems to equate the two of them. That's who you are
> > reaching.
>
> And I don't know how much more clearly I can say this, since I've said
> so countless times already: My founding intent for KinkForAll had
> nothing to do with specifically reaching a BDSM-inclined populace.
Indeed, but, whatever your intent _was_, what you achieved, seems,
overall to be that the people you reached are, overall, people who
equate kink to BDSM. I don't know why that is so hard for you to see,
but ... it is what it is. All the wishing in the world won't change
that.
> One of the unexpected benefits of KinkForAll is that it has
> highlighted a deeply-entrenched misappropriation of the word "kink"
> with which, in my view, the sexuality communities segregate themselves
> from others in such a way that makes it less likely for them and their
> activities to have a safe place to exist. This is something I feel a
> visceral driving need to help change.
Excellent. Then do that. But don't mask it in the concept of an
unconference, because that's the wrong venue for such. Start an ad
campaign. Poster places. Put definitions in on-line editable
dictionaries. Refer to such in as many of your communications as
possible. Put up pages that google will search. But, please, don't try
to force a barely formed, starting to live and breath unconference into
a box, or shape, as your platform for doing so. It's not fair to all
the other people who came out for the conference who _do_ think
kink=BDSM.
Oh, and I'm sure not everyone would agree that it is a misappropriation
of the word "kink" any more or less than anything outside of an
unintentional bend in a produced artifact is a misappropriation of it,
either. Language is a living thing, carried in the minds of those who
use it. If I were to knock-up my neighbor, while looking for a rubber,
I might have impregnated them, while looking for a birth-control device,
or I might be making a social call, hoping to borrow something that
would keep my shoes dry. Which is a misappropriation? Neither, they
are just contextually different, depending on the cultural reference.
> Amongst the people we have reached so far, BDSM is prevalent and, as
> we've said before in this thread some number of times too numerous for
> me to count now, *that's what we're trying to make more diverse.*
That's what _you_ are trying to make more diverse, and that is what _I_
am arguing against, for this particular venue, because it goes against
the concept of an unconference, and a self-organizing system.
> Otherwise, if that wasn't something some people, myself included,
> think is important to do this thread wouldn't have existed. So your
> point is understood but is markedly neither here nor there.
Right, and if everyone agreed, then, this thread would not have existed.
Or, if everyone agreed with me, that, instead of trying to force an
unconference into lines it doesn't seem to want to build around, by the
evidence of those who did show up, by the evidence of the classes
offered at it, then, again this discussion wouldn't exist. But, since
there are more than one point of view, and it seems to be important to
those of us who are holding those points of view, on both sides, that's
why this conversation is going on.
> > That's all. Trying to say: "No, this means THIS, because I've stated
> > it." or "We have to change what this means because I want it to mean
> > THIS for everyone." is what I'm arguing against.
>
> What I want is for different people to feel completely free to
> communicate with one another—that's the whole point of having an
> unconference like KinkForAll in the first place.
Right, and the various different people, who did feel comfortable
communicating with one and other did come out to the conference, it was
a great success, and those people are the ones who have begun to form
the core of the next one, and hopefully many next ones. By telling them
that they are wrong, and have to think in other ways, how is that
allowing them to feel completely free? You are putting constraints on
them, not I. You are limiting those that did come out, not I. Why are
you doing so?
> I think that if
> language is a barrier to this, one way to lower the barrier is to
> create a deep understanding of the relevant words so that they can act
> as carriers of shared understanding that can, hopefully, permeate to
> everyone who wishes to communicate.
Most people there don't have a language barrier. They are quite happy
thinking kink=BDSM. You aren't lowering the barrier, you are adding
complications to a word that they thought they knew what meant. Until
you change the cultural context, outside of the unconference, you won't
be doing anything but actually raising the language barrier. If I know
what a beazle is, and Fred, over there knows what a beazle is, and you
insist that a beazle isn't simply a collection, but anything that might
cause a collection to form, you are the one causing the language
barrier, because you are causing us to, instead of talking about
beazles, because, of course, we know what they are, we have to pause,
and think before opening our mouths, because now something we never
thought a beazle might be, might now be considered a beazle, and that
throws the assumptions that we have been making, in our comfortable
conversation off, and now we are no longer comfortable in our
conversation.
Does that help paint the picture any cleaner?
> >> If so, can you
> >> provide a reference to this, or explain why the dictionary defines
> >> kink differently than that, or why, as Syd pointed out, that "kink"
> >> was a colloquialism for "cool"?
> >
> > Sure, in my Machinist handbook, a kink is an unintentional bend, and
> > it
> > seems to me that you are bending (perhaps unintentionally, I'll give
> > you
> > the benefit of the doubt) everything I'm saying away from what I'm
> > actually saying, so you have kinked the conversation.
>
> Jeesus, *that's* not something that I would consider has anything to
> do with BDSM, so you've shown me yet another example of why "kink
> doesn't equal BDSM" perfectly. Thank you.
And you missed the point, entirely. Unless you expect a machinist's
convention, or a bunch of kids, who want to spray their friends with
high-power water, in the summer-time, and therefore create kinks in
hoses, neither of which would be comfortable with the concept of
_anything_ we are talking about, you are going aside the focus entirely.
None of them came out, right? So the "kink" that we are serving with
the "KinkForAll" doesn't get defined that way for the people there, and
therefore, the aggregate view of the conference doesn't bend that way.
As the view moves to what those who showed up, provided it, why are you
trying to take it away from them, and steer it somewhere else?
> > Or, perhaps I might point out, once again, that the evidence that is
> > before you, the talks offered at the two already happened, seem to
> > bear
> > my point quite nicely. But, since that's a fact that you don't seem
> > to
> > want to acknowledge, perhaps, it is fruitless to pursue this.
>
> Percival, I don't know how you're continually misreading this: this
> entire thread was born out of multiple people's acknowledgement that
> BDSM is, sadly, an overwhelming influence at KinkForAll events and
> this is a detriment to growing diversity. I find your claim that I
> have failed to acknowledge this insulting.
And I've simply been saying that, perhaps it's not such a bad idea that
the people who did show up, have an idea of what kink is, and it, for
most of them, does map to BDSM, and it isn't sad, nor a detriment to the
life of the convention. It might be insulting to you, that such a
simple point keeps getting missed by you, but it's true that you have
yet to acknowledge what it is that _I_ am saying, and accept that it
might be a valid position, instead of continuing to dismiss everything I
am saying, as if I was stupid, or misunderstanding. I've acknowledged
your point, several times, I'm just calling it into question, and you
keep saying "there is no other point of view, why don't you get that."
So, perhaps the insult is on the other side?
> >> So, are you suggesting that a KinkForAll should focus on
> >> generalizations while ignoring edge cases? Why?
> >
> > No, again you have missed, entirely what I'm saying. I'm saying that
> > most people that the KinkForAll concept has reached, only know the
> > square, and forcing them all into changing their minds, and forcing us
> > all into those little corners that don't fit, perhaps follows your
> > particular agenda
>
> Percival, again, no one is calling for the abolishment of BDSM. Please
> stop implying that we, or I, are. It is, again, personally insulting,
> especially as someone who has most of his roots in the BDSM community.
And yet, that _is_ what you are saying, even if you don't realize it.
But, even if you _do_ realize it, why is it an insult? Why is it
hurtful to you, unless it is poking at something you are uncomfortable
with? That's the essence of most insults, you know. A poke at
something that is uncomfortable for the person hearing it. I'm not
trying to insult you, I'm simply trying to show you that something like
an unconference is made up of the people who show up for it, and want to
show up for it, and, even those who volunteer more it should have no
more say as to the intent of those people showing up, than any other
participant, who only volunteers their time for the day. No one is more
equal than anyone else. And yet, you keep insisting that some people
_are_ more equal, some people's interest _are_ more important than
others, because they have to be specifically catered to, specifically
nurtured, and forced on the rest of the people.
You aren't abolishing BDSM, but you are saying that those people who's
kinks are not BDSM should have more focus, more attention, are more
equal, should get more consideration. That tells the people who do
practice BDSM, and map kink to BDSM that they are wrong, that their
views are wrong, and that they aren't as welcome, or aren't welcome, if
they don't change their minds.
You don't realize that that is a message you are sending, probably
(hopefully) but that _is_ the message you are sending.
> > the majority were interested in some things, and
> > therefore, with an untillered barge, it goes where the current leads,
> > regardless if some of the people on the barge wanted to go upstream.
> > Upstream takes effort, you see.
>
> This thread is not about excluding BDSM, it is about including other
> interests. And "all leaders are heretics."[0]
At the expense of ... whom? There are only so many slots, right? This
has the effect of telling people who have the BDSM interest that they
are not as important, not as interesting, or not as accepted as the
other people who are trying to be specially accommodated.
All leaders might be heretics, but ... this is supposed to be a
leaderless conference, so ...
> > if you insist that the
> > people who want to do talks on why inserting one's fist in another's
> > bits is the cat's pajamas, well ... the conference supports that as
> > well. And if more people want to talk about what they want to do to
> > other people's bits, than your particular skill at lucet-work ... why,
> > at an unconference are they wrong?
>
> Who's saying that they're wrong? Seriously, please stop putting words
> in my mouth. It's distasteful. Again, no one is calling for the
> abolishment of BDSM as a valid subject matter discussed at a
> KinkForAll event.
_YOU_ are saying they are wrong. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
You, by saying "these other things are so important, that we have to
take special effort to make sure they have their special space,
regardless of anything else going on" you are saying to the people who
_don't_ think as you do, that the people who are only interested in
fisting are less important.
That's what I'm trying to express to you, and, that seems to be what you
aren't getting. No one is talking about abolishment, except you, but
you are talking about greater and lesser citizens, and second-class
citizens. Why?
> A lack of other topics *is* something I see as a problem, so while
> that might be an upstream battle, it's one I find important enough to
> fight.
Right, but fight it by being a presenter, by being part of it, not by
forcing it from the outside, by demanding that the whole conference
focus on your particular dislike for the lack of other topics, but that
the whole unconference will decide, as a body, by attending, or not
attending, putting up talks or not putting up talks that they, as a
whole have interest in. We have asked people who have several
presentations, to keep to one or two, because the grid fills up so fast.
If you have several interests, you get to decide, for yourself, which is
the most important to you to present. Then, the people at the
unconference get to decide, with their feet, which of the presentations
they like, and which they don't, and it sparks in them more
presentations along similar lines, and that grows, as the unconference
grows. _BUT_ if you say "we need to do more of this, force more of this
down people's throat, you now have a conference on "why Kink is broader
than BDSM" that happens to not have as many pre-scheduled slots as some
conferences, but that is what you are creating.
> I'd very much appreciate it if you stopped painting me as having an
> agenda that I don't and instead painted me as having the agenda that I
> do have. I'm astoundingly transparent about my agendas. In case you
> missed it, diversity is one of my agendas.
I've been painting you as having an agenda. And that's what I've been
pointing out is the problem. Not what the agenda is, but
_that_you_have_one_. That's what I've been saying is bad or wrong _for_
an unconference.
I'm not saying it's bad or wrong for anything else. Just for an
unconference. Or, not so much that you have one, but that you are
trying to push it on an organizational level, as opposed to simply
showing up as a participant, and putting on whatever talk you want to
put on, as a participant.
> > yes, my evidence is specifically based on who I interact with.
> >
> >> If so, would you say that you had
> >> any influence in shaping those situations?
> >
> > Every particle interacts with every other particle. Some in a more
> > influential way, some less.
> > […]
> > I never called it objective
>
> Thanks for clarifying that.
My pleasure. That's what empirical means. That's why I used it.
> > you have described a lovely D/s, power exchange scene (which is
> > BDSM) in
> > your attempt to give an example of "kink-not-BDSM".
>
> You put the D/s in the strap-on scene example, not me. Here's a
> quotation of my example:
>
> "loving heterosexual couple who, while caressing one another and
> kissing one another slowly, also tenderly enjoy strap-on sex in which
> the man is the penetrated partner"[1]
Right. And, right there, in front of you, is a power exchange. D/s by
definition. What does the speed of the kiss, the tenderness of the
action have to do with being D/s or not? Or for that matter, do you
think that no one lovingly, slowly and with tenderness, flog each other?
Just because its, slow, loving and tender, does that make it not BDSM or
D/s?
There is something outside the "standard mainstream" path, and therefore
power is exchanged, transformed, changed, and it is D/s. I didn't put
that there, you did, by choosing that example.
Or, is BDSM in your mind rough, coarse, fast, and not enjoyed?
Interesting kink. Perhaps that should be a topic of a presentation.
> >> Do you think that, given this, swinging can be accurately described
> >> as
> >> being beyond the scope of BDSM but still within the realm of
> >> something
> >> to discuss at a KinkForAll event?
> >
> > Sure, and so could bootlace making. But was it? Either of them?
> > Voluntarily, by the people participating, unforced? No. Hence my
> > point.
>
> And mine is that if we do not have diversity, we do not create a space
> that includes unbarred freedom to feel comfortable talking about the
> things someone different from who we are wants to discuss, which might
> include bootlace making.
That already exists. Unfortunately you are talking about limiting that
unbarred freedom, and put constraints on it, force it into a shape that
it wasn't forming on it's own, and put your own agenda in place of the
open freedom. Whatever you agenda might be, however noble, worthy, or
exciting, it's still _an_agenda_ and therefore causes the freedom to be
limited or go away.
> >> Do orgies and swinging necessarily involve BDSM today?
> >
> > No more or less than they did in the 60's, from my experience of them.
> > But, again, what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
> > This
> > isn't the 1960s. And people currently don't think of kink being
> > orgies
> > or group sex, or swinging. And today is when KinkForAll is being
> > held.
>
> No, Percival, people today do think of kink as possibly involving
> orgies and group sex and swinging.[2]
I'm sure some people do. I'm sure some people think that kink might
involve scheduling, or boot-laces, or even talking with their partners
on mars. But the predominance of people, that this particular
conference has reached tend not to. And that's my point. By forcing an
agenda, you are limiting the unconference, and making it a conference on
your agenda.
> You, with your blinders, and others with theirs, think "kink" means
> what YOU do. Everyone else thinks kink is either what *they* do,
> regardless of whether they think it is BDSM or not, or they think it
> is something they would feel is unconventional to do, again,
> regardless of whether they think it is BDSM or not.
I do have some blinders. I admit it. We all do. It's part of being
human, and not being able to process everything, learn everything, and
rewrite out childhood experiences. But that has nothing to do with the
discussion. You, with your desire to force the blinders to look in a
specific direction are limiting the freedom of those of us with our
blinders focused elsewhere, and are comfortable with our focus, and want
to gather and talk about our mutual focuses, and don't want to
necessarily feel like our biases, the truths we have found, our comfort
zones, what makes us go sprong, are less important than someone else's,
who we are now told that are more equal than the rest of us, that we
must consider and explore, by forcing something that was not organically
there, in place.
> > kink seems to indicate
> > to the large majority of the target audience you are trying to read a
> > strong if not complete correspondence with BDSM.
>
> Again, please stop assuming who *my* "target audience" is.[3] Before
> you make such remarks, please actually learn about what I'm trying to
> do. Thanks.
For this particular issue, I have to presume that your target audience
are the people coming to the Boston KinkForAll unconference. Am I
wrong?
If it is somewhere else, I would refer to a certain post, by a certain
person, suggesting that off-topic things not be put on the KinkForAll
mailing list, and that there are plenty of other venues to discuss such,
just not this one, which is focused on how the KinkForAll unconferences
are to be brought into existence.
Since that _is_ the topic here, that is what I'm trying to address.
Anything else is beyond the scope of this mailing list. I actually am
quite interested in your particular platform as espoused in your
footnote number 3, and I'd be curious to see where it goes, but, since
that isn't what _this_ list is about, I'd like to try and drag your
focus back to here.
> >>> I'm not talking about my mind, at the moment, I'm talking about the
> >>> cultural trends we seem to be trying to buck to get an unconference,
> >>> to
> >>> actually have a hidden agenda, as opposed to a gathering of those
> >>> self-selected to be at it.
> >>
> >> Do we have a hidden agenda? I thought this thread made our agenda
> >> very
> >> clear: expanding the diversity of participants. What do you see as
> >> hidden about this goal?
> >
> > It's hidden from the unconference.
>
> This mailing list is public. I consider that not at all hidden.
> KinkForAll Boston had a presentation about this list thread[4]. I
> would consider that not hidden from the unconference.
How many people that attended the unconference are on this list? I
refer to the thought that the plans for the by-pass were, indeed on
display, in a locked cabinet, in the basement, with no stairs, with a
sign on it that reads "beware of the tiger."
And the presentation for it _at_ the unconference, is, exactly what I've
been suggesting. To show up and, as a participant, put your views up.
But don't tell other folks that their views (that being, in this case
"kink=BDSM" are wrong on an organizational level. If that's what you
think is most important to do your presentation on, then do it. If,
however, you insist that "we must outreach, and drag those who have not
shown interest in this unconference, into our conference on why kink!
=BDSM, and advertise to those who do think kink=BDSM by telling them
they can talk about whatever they want, and then show them that they
have to move their blinders ... that is what I'm arguing against.
> > What are you looking for? Success? Or your particular agenda?
>
> Once again I feel like a broken record because I do not feel like you
> are listening to anything. This is the last email addressed to you,
> Percival, in which I'll say it again:
>
> What I want is for different people to be feel completely free to
> communicate with one another.
Right. Then ... why force _your_ view of what you feel is right on
their communication? They are happy communicating about what they were
communicating about. Unless the ones who showed up are less important
than the theoretical ones that you would wish show up. To feel
completely free, one needs to be comfortable. If one is told that their
view is wrong, are they still comfortable? How are you feeling when I'm
telling you your view is wrong. Comfortable? From your tone, I'd say
not. Why not? Because we hold opposing views. If you tell people that
their view that kink=BDSM is wrong, and that they have to change their
view, then, you are making them uncomfortable, and therefore, they do
not feel as free to communicate. And therefore you have two conflicting
goals. And I'm heart-felt sorry that you don't seem to see this.
> > You are also
> > asking those who do participate to only do so in certain ways, to
> > limit
> > themselves from sharing what they wish to share.
>
> No one participating in this thread is creating restrictions on
> KinkForAll such that BDSM cannot be discussed. Your assertion that I
> am is, as you might have guessed by now, insulting.
And your refusing to see that that is not what I'm saying, nor actually
see what I'm saying, is ... well ... sad, because it means my
communications skills are lacking.
Let me try it another way. You have now stated twice that I've said
that your point of view is that BDSM cannot be discussed. Please
provide a cite. I've never asserted that. I've just asserted, again
and again, that having an agenda, regardless of what it is, makes an
unconference a conference, focused on that agenda. I'm trying to save
the spirit of the unconference, and let it self-organize along
_whatever_ lines it does, and seems to. I'm not telling you to "do"
something even something like "limit or remove" anything. I'm telling
you to "not do" something, which is put your agenda into the
unconference.
> >> Yes, exactly. And what characteristics would you say are essential
> >> for
> >> this self-selected group to have? Would you say that they have to
> >> be a
> >> certain age? Would you say they have to be employed? Would you say
> >> they have to be self-described as kinky? Would you say they have to
> >> be
> >> virgins?
> >
> > I would not say there are any essential characteristics.
>
> Then I believe you lack a great deal of understanding of the reality
> in which you live, and on some level, I truly feel some pity for you.
Oh? Isn't that the point of a self-selected group? That someone
doesn't pre-select characteristics of those who find themselves willing
to be selected?
Perhaps, I should get on my high horse, stack my 45+ years of dealing
with a variety of conferences, conventions, unconferences, gatherings,
societies, tribes, think-tanks, directed research, undirected research,
forced problem solving, linguistics, cultural mapping, cultural
shifting, informatics, and simply life, and ask why you feel pity for
me, who can actually see what you are doing, and why it is wrong in this
case, even though you seem hell-bent on not understanding me, and seem
intent, though your good intentions, on destroying what has been, by, in
no small part, your own efforts, created.
There are parents who enjoy their children, and help their children grow
up to be their own people, who let them enough space to find their own
path, and help them along the way, when they stumble, or fall, or hurt
themselves. There are also parents who have plotted the whole path that
their children will walk, from birth on through what college they will
attend, what grades they will get, from the moment that said child
emerges. In my value system, the former is more humane than the latter,
and I tend to support that style more. Let your child grow the way it
wants to grow, don't force a path upon it, before it has even taken more
than it's first few steps. Please.
> > I'm proud I can take part in making an unconference happen, without
> > trying to bias, limit, or steer it, beyond what the various
> > participants
> > choose to do. I'm proud that, having found a square-shaped hole, I'm
> > not trying to pound a non-square rectangle or a non-square rhomboid
> > through it.
>
> I encourage you to take part in making KinkForAll Boston 2 happen. I
> hope you one day participate at a KinkForAll event in person, instead
> of solely on this mailing list, and are welcomed by the other
> participants.
*grin* Interesting back-handed statement. I do hope to see you at the
next Boston Meet and Greet, as well, and delight in reading what
research you manage to turn up for the various problems we face, when
the next one comes up. What's that you say? A pissing contest about
commitment? Sorry ... I couldn't resist.
I signed up, and helped to work on a conference I _knew_ I couldn't
attend, because it is an amazing idea, and people I know and care for
are supporting it, and I want to make it happen. I had a teaching
engagement elsewhere. A commitment of my own to a whole bunch of
people, some of whom would have been delighted to have been at both
occasions, but ... having made a commitment, with time and money, had to
honor that commitment, or be forsworn. It was a big BDSM event, in
fact. So, of the people who were there, there was even less of a BDSM
bias than there might have been, otherwise, and yet, still, look at what
the majority of the presentations and focuses were on.
Think about it.
> In the mean time, I'm going to do my part to participate in this self-
> organization such that rhombus shaped pegs feel just as welcome as
> square shaped ones. I encourage you to *also* help me make them
> welcome here and become an active part of the community. If you don't
> feel like doing this, then there are many other tasks and areas of the
> KinkForAll community where your help would be similarly appreciated.
And I am still, with respect to the continued existence of a free and
open, not forced, not constrained unconference that is self-organized,
self-selected, entreating you not to force your rectangular pegs on the
square peg people. They are happy with who they are. Don't tell them
that they are wrong, don't tell them that they have to accept things
they don't want to, or think of accepting. Just offer them
possibilities yourself, by offering what talks you are interested in
offering, and let those who are comfortable, who enjoy showing up, who
feel comfortable in the arena that we, ourselves, have created, by being
there and gathering in the first place, be able to give what talks we
want to give. And let those who are not comfortable with the free and
open exchanges that are going on, be. Rolling out the red carpet for
some means that there are others who are not as valued, and that is a
message an unconference should avoid.
> >> Hmm. So what you're saying is that an unconference can't have an
> >> agenda, because then it's a conference. Do you think that "talking
> >> about kink" is an agenda? If so, would you have been happier if the
> >> event were called "ForAll."
> >
> > Did you read the whole piece on the wiki about why the name was
> > chosen?
> > If so, why are you questioning it?
>
> Having had a hand in writing that piece, you know very well that I'm
> not questioning it, I'm questioning *you* so I could figure out where
> the hell you're coming from, yet your insistence on dodging direct
> questions makes it difficult to do that.
I've answered your direct questions, and asked a few of my own, which
seem to be going begging for answers. I've put forth my position in a
number of ways, and I don't seem to be able to communicate it with you.
I'm beginning to wonder why. Perhaps my skills at writing, at showing
you what you are doing are not as strong as I would like, and therefore
I am not able to get across to you the important concept that I see so
clearly.
> > I want the people who make the choice to talk about their particular
> > kink,
> > of their own volition, with no hidden agenda guiding their hand, to be
> > able to talk about their particular kink, and, other folks who are
> > interested, to show up and participate with said talking. And I want
> > those people who are not comfortable, not entirely sanguine about what
> > they might be talking about, to have the option not to do so, to not
> > even show up, to show up, and turn away, because it's not their thing.
>
> That's exactly what I want
Good! That's all and exactly what I want, for this unconference as
well.
> only
I was taught, that, when you make such a statement, and then follow it
with "but" or "only" you are going on to invalidate the entire previous
statement. Think about that, please.
> I'd also love it if people didn't just
> talk about their kink, but also asked questions of other people's
> kinks as well as bringing up topics that they found interesting and
> related to their kink even if that topic wasn't in a silo of their kink.
A lovely alternative thought. And, as a participant, you should ask
those questions in the presentations, put on your presentation in such a
way that causes people to go "hrm" and wonder about the world larger
than their comfort zone.
That is not to say, you should be forcing that at an organizational
level.
> I think we *almost* have that, which is wonderful.
I think we have it. We will have it _less_ if you force your agenda
onto things.
> I think reactions
> to KinkForAll unconferences such as Bitsy's partner's and like Sam
> Benjamin's[5] shows us that we have some work to do before we can
> claim to have achieved a wonderful environment in which people are
> "able to talk about their particular kink," to use your words, or are
> "completely free to communicate," to use mine. Again, hence this thread.
And, they did communicate. They communicated their discomfort with some
of the people there, and decided that their comfort in not being open to
other ways was more important than sharing their ways, and since the
majority of people there, communicating openly, talking about their
particular kink, where not within the comfort zone of the people who
left, by definition of them leaving. So, to make the minority
comfortable, you would limit the majority? Do you think that limit,
that forcing of a definition will be comfortable, and therefore allow
the folks who are already comfortable to feel free to communicate? Or
might they worry about crossing that line, that has now appeared, and
now no longer feel completely free to communicate?
> >> No, as described above, kink does not equal BDSM in my mind. When I
> >> saw "kink instructor" in your signature, I thought of our meeting at
> >> ShibariCon when you showed Zac some cool stuff about the carotid
> >> artery (sp?). That's why I asked. :)
> >
> > Indeed, nor in mine. Which is why it is there.
>
> Great. I hope you will help me show how varied and diverse kink is to
> people who do not already think that it is.
Perhaps I might, but ... I might or might not agree that this is the
forum to do so. I tend to bend to the will and whim of my audience, not
necessarily put my agenda forth, even in an agenda-driven environment.
My desire is not to make people uncomfortable by challenging their
world-view and their definitions, as much as I want to give them
knowledge that they did not already have, and are already seeking. Here
and elsewhere, but ... especially here, because that's specifically the
spirit of here.
> >> I see "the M/s relationship, outside of parties/clubs/etc" as BDSM,
> >> specifically as being about the DS in that acronym.
> >
> > Indeed, but that is the one I hesitated the longest on putting up.
> > Because it is such a tangent to sexuality, I wasn't sure it belonged.
>
> KinkForAll was designed to be a perfect place where tangents that
> begin at sexuality but end elsewhere can be discussed. I'm sorry that
> this was not clear to you earlier. I hope it is now.
Now, in this, others might not agree with you. I do agree with you,
obviously, because, after my hesitation, I did include it in my list.
But others might say, "Sexuality is broad enough, let us not drag
gardening into this, as well." It was for those folks that my
hesitation existed.
> >> You also cleverly dodged my question, which I'm still interested in
> >> hearing an answer to, by the way. :)
> >
> > I did, mostly because, as I said elsewhere, I do tailor my classes to
> > the audience present. So ... they range.
>
> I feel you have again dodged the question. In my opinion, Percival, it
> is *you* who is hiding behind questions, not me, and the insinuation
> you've made to the contrary is, again, personally insulting.
I've made statements. I've talked directly, by allegory, by the
Socratic Method, by simile, but, I don't seem to reach you. And here, I
am answering a question directly, by saying they range, and not asking
another question, and here, you are accusing me of hiding behind
questions, not accepting my answer, and telling me that my words,
instead of simply being what they are, are supposed to be an insinuation
of insult. Perhaps, and this might be a bit personal, you are ascribing
a tone to my messages in your head, that is not there. I know that
happens sometimes in email conversations. I do try to be direct, and
straight-forward in what I say, I do tend to mean what I say and say
what I mean (which are two entirely different things, as you know) but,
sometimes, people see things that aren't there.
I bring up the classic one. There was a critic who thanked Hemingway
for his excellent Jesus allegory. Hemingway's response was "It's a
story about a guy and a fish." The critic, with his particular bent,
his agenda, mapped the story to what he wanted to. Matter of fact, if
you Google for it, there are hundreds if not thousands of papers,
references, and the like, all interpreting it in those terms. It
apparently made Hemingway very bitter. His words were about a struggle
for survival, at any and all cost, and why, even after everything else
has been sacrificed, sometimes you carry on anyway. No value
judgements, no statements or mappings to things outside his writing,
but ... people read his writing and bring their own mind-sets to it. I
believe that is what you are doing to my writing, at the moment.
Especially if you don't see me answering your questions, not hiding my
words, being very direct, and yet, you seem to be looking for something
hidden.
I'm feeling like you are trying to peel me like an onion, looking for
the seeds.
> >> The fact that "many folks"
> >> think that "kink=BDSM" is the crux of this whole thread. I don't
> >> think
> >> anyone is disagreeing with that statement, right?
> >
> > Alas, you seem to be.
>
> Wow. Just…wow. I'm…flummoxed.
So am I. But that seems to be what you are saying. You are saying that
"this is not right, this shouldn't be, let's prove that it's not right,
by forcing my view on everyone who is comfortable in this view."
Perhaps that got your attention onto what you are doing?
> >> Now, would you describe [calendaring/scheduling sex] as fitting
> >> into the umbrella of BDSM, or
> >> would you say that it's kinky?
> >
> > Yes, and yes. And fun. And worthwhile to talk about. Maybe it can
> > be
> > a talk for KinkForAll?
>
> Sure! I disagree with your conclusion that such activity necessarily
> fits into the umbrella of BDSM, but so what? Come talk about it at
> KinkForAll *because KinkForAll is not about a specific sexuality.*[6]
Ahh ... but it's not my topic to talk about. Yours? Sure. This is,
what, the 8th thing you want to talk about at KinkForAll? Does that
play well with "keep the number of presentations down, because other
people want to present as well" or are you trying to convince me to give
up talking about what I find interesting and important, and use me to
put forward your agenda as well?
> > But, if there was someone who was doing this, who had no real interest
> > in the rest of what was going on, and felt that they didn't really
> > want
> > to share it, but you insisted, because it would be diverse, and
> > brought
> > them in specifically for it? That would be an entire other kettle of
> > fish. And _that_ is my point. If you want to do something, great!
> > If
> > someone else does? Marvelous.
>
> Gee, I hope people don't force people to do anything they don't want,
> ever.
Excellent! Then, stop trying to force your view of "inclusion" and
"outreach" down the throats of people not wanting it, and not interested
in it, and, perhaps, even, uncomfortable with it.
> I similarly hope you are not insinuating that I have done this,
> because yet again, that would not only be incorrect, but also
> personally insulting.
But, I'm not insinuating anything. I'm trying to save you from, with
all the good intentions in the world, going and doing just that. If you
find it insulting, look as to why.
> >> Or are you
> >> suggesting that we are trying to drag or "yank" people out of their
> >> comfort zone?
> >
> > By forcing things into a "diversity" channel, yes.
>
> Ahhh, now I am beginning to see where your incorrect (and insulting)
> assumptions have stemmed from. Sadly, I have no idea how to present
> these concepts to you in a way that I am confident will not be
> perceived by your internal filters as doing something you don't like.
> Therefore, my conversation with you is over.
Perhaps, because you see my point, and don't agree with it, you choose
to end the dialogue, as opposed to actually see why it is bad for the
unconference we have birthed, and are trying to grow.
> I will now stop conversing with you and will not interact with you
> again until I either come up with a way to do so productively or
> something else changes such that what I feel is productive
> communication with you can happen again.
*shrug* Take your bat and ball, and go home. I'd rather deal with the
issue, and hope to cause it not even to need a solution, because it
doesn't come up, than have to try and fix it later, when it does come
up, cripples such a beautiful idea, and people are standing around,
afterward, wondering why it died. I hate being in the position of
saying "I told you so" so I try to correct before. Everyone hates
Cassandra, and for a reason. Because she does nothing to try and
correct the visions that are heading down the wrong path.
You might wish to retire from the field, but I will still try to make
sure the unconference stays self-organizing, self-generating, and let it
become what it will become.
On the other hand, if you want to run a conference on the diversity of
Kink, please, do let me know. I have a lecture or two that might suit
such a conference, nicely. I also know a few people who are in the
professional speakers circuit, who would be happy to give you facts,
figures, reports, and everything necessary to back your view of why
equating broadened sexuality and it's interactions to a subsection of
it, is, on a long-term view bad for our culture.
But, I say again. This is not the place for such. This is about
KinkForAll unconference, not anything else.
> Until then,
> -maymay
> Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
> Community: http://KinkForAll.org
> Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
>
> EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
>
> [0] http://twitter.com/maymaym/status/4676828076
> [1] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/2ae6551aadde16ce/574a5c5662b63c2a#msg_850b7c1c2d99c17c
>
> [2] http://maybemaimed.com/2007/12/14/an-exemplar-of-conservative-hypocrisy/
>
> Specifically: "Grossman doesn’t miss the opportunity to lump all kinds
> of sexual practices into one steaming pile of 'beware of dog!',
> including threesomes and swinging, right up there with BDSM."
>
> [3] http://maybemaimed.com/2009/05/03/bdsm-versus-kink-nobody-but-your-sex-partner-cares-how-you-fuck/
> [4] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/KinkForAllBostonSchedule
> [5] http://www.ivyleaguepornographer.com/archives/715
> [6] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#IsthereanyspecificsexualityfocusatKinkForAll
With all respect and concern for the unconference we share, I remain,
Lord Percival
Gordon Olmstead-Dean
And you missed the point, entirely. Unless you expect a machinist's
convention, or a bunch of kids, who want to spray their friends with
high-power water, in the summer-time, and therefore create kinks in
hoses, neither of which would be comfortable with the concept of
_anything_ we are talking about, you are going aside the focus entirely.
None of them came out, right? So the "kink" that we are serving with
the "KinkForAll" doesn't get defined that way for the people there, and
therefore, the aggregate view of the conference doesn't bend that way.
As the view moves to what those who showed up, provided it, why are you
trying to take it away from them, and steer it somewhere else?
maymay
how KinkForAll might reach people of different age brackets?
I'm specifically thinking of younger people, e.g., teens and minors.
This has become really relevant as KinkForAll Washington DC has
successfully secured Bethesda Chevy-Chase High School as a venue.[0]
There has, so far, been a lot of talk in that KFADC venue thread[0]
about which people *should not* be permitted to attend a KinkForAll.
Thankfully, we are legally required to admit minors to the public
facility for KFADC (and I personally hope I never have to argue
against anyone wanting to ban minors at a KinkForAll event ever
again). So now I'd like to flip the question.
Rather than trying to make minors safe by *barring* certain people for
whom it would be illegal to be present at our venue, I think it's time
to start thinking about how we can improve the lives of minors (and,
everyone else, as well), by inviting them to KinkForAll Washington DC.
How might we reach them and encourage them to participate? How might
we create an atmosphere that encourages them to teach *us,* legal
adults, something—a chance I suspect they rarely get at a school?
Thoughts?
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/t/abfbaf13d9d11b09
Philip
I can appreciate that kids need to know about sex and sexuality. I
know I had questions at an early age. Those waters are hard to
navigate and for GLBT kids it must be especially hard.
But when Megan Andelloux is having trouble getting a sex ed center set
up in Pawtuckett RI[0] because local politicians don't know what to
make of such a thing, I think it's a monumentally bad idea to involve
kids in a KFA environment.
We often say that what we do begins with consent. Children cannot
consent. A minor at a kink event is a non-consenting participant
regardless of his or her perceived maturity.
Sex education for kids is important. Growing up I learned about all
the bad things that happen when you have sex. It would have been
wonderful to have also learned about all the good things.
But Kink for Kids as part of Kink for All? Only if you want to be on
the 11 o'clock news with "Teaches kids kinky sex" under your face.
[0]http://www.pawtuckettimes.com/content/view/98365/1/
Sara Eileen
maymay
> Discussion of the definition of the word kink is fascinating from a
> cultural perspective, but may not be our best means of creating
> solid, usable strategies to engage our intended audience.
Or indeed, any specific audience, not just the ones we may or may not
intend.
> What other strategies might we use to build the kind of audience we
> want to see in attendance?
>
> Best,
> Sara Eileen
I think Ironrose has been doing some great things with regard to
generalizing the text on our wiki web site away from sexuality-
specific lingo. I like how well she's been removing jargon from the
site. Does anyone see more opportunities for doing something more
along these lines?
Sara, do you think this is one of the things we could do to build more
diversity in KinkForAll participants? I do.
Another thought that I had with regards to creating a more diverse
participant pool is to create different consumable media formats. For
example, I've been trying really hard to get a spread of text, audio,
and video recordings of KinkForAll events so that people who are more
aurally inclined have as much resources with which they can learn
about KinkForAll and what goes on there as people who are visually or
textually inclined.
There was some talk about a "promo video" a while back. Has there been
any more thought paid to this idea?
Cheers,
Heliotrope
Percival - I'm sorry, but reading your words, it sounds like the
majority group in a situation is saying that they will become second
class citizens simply for moving over to allow minority groups in a
bit. Like saying that white people will become second class citizens
should there be any wide-spread move to make sure that the rights of
hispanics, blacks, and asians are met. Personally, I think my lot is
bettered for hearing more about what people who are different from me
have to say, both about their lives and interests, and what they think
of mine. I identify as part of the BDSM community, and I wish I had
more spaces - like KinkForAll - where I could talk about that
community and practices with people who don't participate, and hear
their own perspectives. To educate them, and be educated. I don't
think giving them room makes me less important than they are.
I have put a certain amount of thought into how to spread the word of
KFA to a wider variety of groups, and luddite that I am, I have always
personally done it by word of mouth. By embracing that KFA is not a
conference about BDSM, I'm free to introduce it to friends to whom I
am out about BDSM with, but with whom I am willing to talk about
reproductive rights, gender politics and sexual justice. I don't feel
I risk outing myself unduly to spread the word to anybody with an open
and intelligent mind, I hope that others can do the same, and simply
tell the great people they know about this great event they
participate in. With luck I will see more of my friends and others
talking constitutional law and democratic theology at these
unconferences in the future.
Best,
Emma
Little Black Dress
> As such, if our goal is to deliberately reach out into broader
> communities, what other marketing tactics might we use to encourage
> people to look not once, but twice? A name is important, but far more
> fundamental to good marketing is engaging one's audience. I've
> personally seen many examples of people who do not identify with
> alt-sex communities of any kind who, when they stop to listen to me
> speak for a few minutes about KinkForAll, will respond with, "That
> sounds really fucking cool. I want to go!"
>
> Discussion of the definition of the word kink is fascinating from a
> cultural perspective, but may not be our best means of creating solid,
> usable strategies to engage our intended audience. What other
> strategies might we use to build the kind of audience we want to see
> in attendance?
>
in the BDSM or any alt-sex community.
I became interested in KFA because I think it has the seed that can be
cultivated to attract people outside alt-sex communities. To me, it sort
of asked, "What is your kink?" This may sound sort of silly, but reading
through the mission and purposes, it implied that *every person* had
something that turned them on (their kink) and it encouraged me to add
my voice to the fray. To be free to talk about my sex and my sexuality
in an environment that actively wanted me to share... because the end
goal is to both hear and be a part of a grander picture.
Ai
The Distinguished ...
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 15:07 -0700, Heliotrope wrote:
> Hey All,
> Percival - I'm sorry, but reading your words, it sounds like the
> majority group in a situation is saying that they will become second
> class citizens simply for moving over to allow minority groups in a
> bit. Like saying that white people will become second class citizens
> should there be any wide-spread move to make sure that the rights of
> hispanics, blacks, and asians are met.
Take a look at all the studies on reverse-discrimination, and what
forced balancing has done to competitive markets. But that is far from
my point. If you go too far, and say that, in your example, hispanic,
black, and asian votes are worth twice that of the white people, because
they are in a minority, and that's how you balance a minority properly,
then you have moved into animal farm, and some people are "more equal"
than others.
> Personally, I think my lot is
> bettered for hearing more about what people who are different from me
> have to say, both about their lives and interests, and what they think
> of mine.
that excite them, I get excited, as well, because passion is contagious.
There is nothing wrong with that.
> I identify as part of the BDSM community, and I wish I had
> more spaces - like KinkForAll - where I could talk about that
> community and practices with people who don't participate, and hear
> their own perspectives. To educate them, and be educated. I don't
> think giving them room makes me less important than they are.
are interested in doing so, unforced, without having to roll out
something special for them, would be most delightful. Whomever the
"them" might be. Heck, if the Phelps and his folks were to show up, I
know most people would not welcome them, but, I'd be curious as to what
they would say, and how they would address things, and if any of the
congregation would be staying for the other talks, or just their piece,
and how many folks would show up to actually attend their class, how
many folks would show up to protest or argue with them, and how many
folks would simply say "not interested" and go to other things scheduled
at the time. But, as Bitsy said, her partner was uncomfortable, so he
didn't stay. If someone is uncomfortable with the way the
self-organizing unconference has built itself, then, they should be
allowed to be uncomfortable, and not courted, cajoled, or convinced,
that, no, really, this is for them. That's what I've been going on
about. That and current perceptions in our culture, in terms of word
meanings.
> I have put a certain amount of thought into how to spread the word of
> KFA to a wider variety of groups, and luddite that I am, I have always
> personally done it by word of mouth.
can judge your audience's comfort level, and decide if you want to wax
enthusiastic, or simply let them know it exists, and if they have
interest, they will show up. Or, at least, that's what I've found, in
the various groups I've brought up the topic to.
> By embracing that KFA is not a
> conference about BDSM, I'm free to introduce it to friends to whom I
> am out about BDSM with, but with whom I am willing to talk about
> reproductive rights, gender politics and sexual justice.
read of the sentence puts it that way... if I'm wrong, please forgive
me.
I'd be delighted if activists of any stripe, who are interested in
talking about sexuality, theirs, other folks, what they hope to see,
what they hate to see, or the like showing up, as participants, and
letting the unconference grow that way. Without a problem. That's the
essence of the concept behind an unconference. The problem I'm having
is "how do we change it, away from what it is, to match" whatever
someone who has an agenda wants it to change to. When people show up,
and share, of their own volition, because they want to, and are
comfortable in the environment that has been set up ... well ... that's
what it's there for, right? But, if we have to start protecting bits of
it from other bits of it, because of comfort levels, or age, or anything
else ... well ... that's when it becomes a conference, and should be
talked about elsewhere, run elsewhere, and done elsewhere. I'm not
saying that such is not worthy of doing, but ... I'm saying it's not
_this_.
> I don't feel
> I risk outing myself unduly to spread the word to anybody with an open
> and intelligent mind, I hope that others can do the same, and simply
> tell the great people they know about this great event they
> participate in. With luck I will see more of my friends and others
> talking constitutional law and democratic theology at these
> unconferences in the future.
time available to the majority of the populace tend to go hand in hand,
or why blue, especially light-blue, became the colour for boy babies ...
or the difference between "queer" and "gender-queer", or xeno-disphoria,
or any of the other thousands of possibilities, that everyone who is
comfortable presenting on, can present on. I'm just trying to protect
those who already feel comfortable presenting from being told that it's
all well and good that they came out, risked exposure, displeasure, and
all the things a speaker fears, that they are also going to have to face
censure, because the topic they want to talk about isn't "neutral"
enough, or "welcoming" enough for the people that are being catered to,
and specifically solicited.
Not to confuse things, but ... I see Philip saying the same thing, in a
slightly different way, over on the hijack of this thread, and the new
topics generated, dealing with age. He is a wise man, and a father, and
people should listen to him, and give consideration to what he says.
>
> Best,
> Emma
Respectfully,
Lord Percival
The Distinguished ...
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 18:17 -0400, Little Black Dress wrote:
> Sara Eileen wrote:
> > As such, if our goal is to deliberately reach out into broader
> > communities, what other marketing tactics might we use to encourage
> > people to look not once, but twice? A name is important, but far more
> > fundamental to good marketing is engaging one's audience. I've
> > personally seen many examples of people who do not identify with
> > alt-sex communities of any kind who, when they stop to listen to me
> > speak for a few minutes about KinkForAll, will respond with, "That
> > sounds really fucking cool. I want to go!"
> >
> > Discussion of the definition of the word kink is fascinating from a
> > cultural perspective, but may not be our best means of creating solid,
> > usable strategies to engage our intended audience. What other
> > strategies might we use to build the kind of audience we want to see
> > in attendance?
> >
> I am one of those people who attended KFA who is not actively involved
> in the BDSM or any alt-sex community.
Cool!
> I became interested in KFA because I think it has the seed that can be
> cultivated to attract people outside alt-sex communities. To me, it sort
> of asked, "What is your kink?" This may sound sort of silly, but reading
> through the mission and purposes, it implied that *every person* had
> something that turned them on (their kink) and it encouraged me to add
> my voice to the fray. To be free to talk about my sex and my sexuality
> in an environment that actively wanted me to share... because the end
> goal is to both hear and be a part of a grander picture.
Excellent! Thank you for being part of this whole unconference!
Participants like you, who take the pieces of this, and bring it into
their lives beyond the day, and who take part on the day, is the whole
reason people volunteer their times and efforts to begin with!
Those that take part, participate, become part of the self-organizing,
self-creating unconference, and breathe life into it.
If you ever care to share, either here, or in a blog, or at another
presentation about how your grander picture looks, or has changed, I'd
be delighted to hear about it, as, I'm sure, we all would.
> Ai
Have a lovely day!
Lord Percival