I’m not sure “liberation” is really the word when you’re talking bondage . . .
After I wrote my argument against EC in the last pit thread I got more emails than I have received since joining the board. All of them were from people who disliked what they saw EC as doing but didn’t want to speak out against it on the board for various reasons. Just because you don’t see a lot of people making an issue out of in on the board doesn’t mean that a lot of people aren’t disturbed by it. Based on the amount of emails received and who they were from, there were far more people hitting “report this post” then starting pit threads. Some of these people who wrote to thank me for my posts in the previous pit thread were into BDSM themselves but preferred to keep that fact private. I don’t blame them. Even in this thread, after all the other threads, those of us who find EC disturbing are being called prudes and told that we “just can’t stomach BDSM.”
Perhaps your eyes glazed over when you passed over my (and others) previous posts. Perhaps you didn’t even read the other threads but just causally wandered into this one. Perhaps you are just deliberately being obtuse and bringing back an already refuted argument because you can’t think for yourself.
Whatever it is, there are many people who are into bondage/BDSM who were squicked out by EC. The other day I was perusing my favorite genre of porn and came across an incredibly hot series that takes place in a BDSM club and has massive amounts of bondage. I already own several other works by the creator known for her BDSM, but this new line was one of the best and I immediately began pestering all my friends who share my kink trying to find the first part of the series since I could only find the later volumes. Later in the evening, I visited the dope and came across EC’s Café Society thread where he talks about a girl being sexually assaulted and I hit the “report this post” button.
Part of the reason why I dislike EC bringing BDSM into unrelated threads is because I like talking about that subject. When I pitted Johanna it wasn’t because I disliked hearing about transsexuality, it was because I love discussing the topic. I also know enough about my sexual kinks to know that BDSM squicks out a lot of other people (and that’s fine). If EC had put TMI in his thread titles or put a warning before his posts then I would have no problem with his fetish. However, based on his behavior in the last pit thread, it is obvious that he enjoys posting things to squick others out/get a rise out of them, that he views anyone who is squicked out by what he posts as sexually repressed and that he considers himself sexually enlightened because he’s into bondage. I also challenge his claim that he isn’t into non-con sex based on both his posts here and what he has written on his website.
In summary - EC squicks me out despite the fact that I like BDSM. And it’s not just me, but several other posters who are into BDSM who feel the same way. (I’m not going to name any names, so don’t ask.)
So can we stop this “you guys are just prudes who hate bondage!” nonsense?
You also parsed that she “want[s] to paint EC as a martyr to the Great BDSM Enlightment”, which is taking your interpretation of the original sarcastic hyperbole to an extreme and is a misrepresentation of her argument. That’s the very definition of “strawman.”
I’m not sure the ability to wreak havoc is very well perceived amongst the BDSM practitioners (is that a word?). For some reason, respect and self-discipline seem to be quite valued.
Actually, I would suspect that on some boards or chatrooms specifically dedicaced to BDSM the tolerance level for hijacking discussions towards one’s own favorite topics could be significantly lower than on this one (not that I would know, of course).
Sorry, I had to finish getting ready for work. My point is, lissener, that you have been working off two assumptions. The first is that she was arguing the opposite of what you said, which is a valid interpretation of what she said. The second is that she was specifically referring to BDSM, which–considering subesquent posts–is not a valid interpretation.
a] But somehow we need insight into your sick fantasy life? :dubious:
b] By “EC’s Cafe Society thread” did you mean the “best” movies that need explaining thread aka the Deathstalker thread? If so, what the hell? The thread title could have used a little more explanation I suppose. Of course, on the other hand it was a thread about things which “need explanation” so maybe that was appropriate. In any case I thought it was starting to shift from a simple “great movies that people need to be told about” conversation to a far more interesting one about certain ‘niche’ movies; not Great! but “great” in that they occupied specialized nooks and occupied well; movies that really need an explanation.
Sort of like the old character actors from when the studios all had their actors on contract and who could have the same guy playing"town drunk" in every damn film. Not a Great Actor! by any means but certainly “great” in that they owned an area of specialization.
Anyway, to recap.
a] Pointless cheapshot that I couldn’t resist
b] Honest inquiry into what you found reportable in the “best movie thread.”
If the post you reported was in another thread then disregard.
Just a bit of friendly advice, but if I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time making off-topic posts proving you’re a snivelling cock.
</further hijack>
Stop picking on duffer. Why do you think he doesn’t have a right to say what he’s saying?
duffer. You’re still saying things like “then I found out I wasn’t allowed to be there”. What do you mean by that? Your posts in defense of your behavior in that thread continue to seem to imply that you were the victim of some kind of liberal hugfest, that you were disappointed that you could not “debate” about the merits of the school’s decision.
Out of curiosity, what discussion was it you wanted to have about that? As Excalibre has pointed out, you were not replying to a point anyone had already made, so what sparked your interest in the “debate” you never got to have? Was your position in fact “They’re a private school so this doesn’t matter”? You seem to have said now that you “never” thought of how it might make queer kids there feel, which to me indicates that if you’re not actually a homophobe, you need to really examine how your underlying biases effect your thinking.
Even if I were straight, if someone said “This school condemned a former student for being in a gay-themed movie”, I promise the first thing I’d think of would be the human feelings involved. The first thing you thought of was the reason why you weren’t upset about it. Do you see why that’s problematic?
abso-fucking -lutely! why people could die w/o food or water for 30 days!
(whisper whisper) what?
oh, then abso-fucking- lutely! why putting some one in solitary confinement for 30 days can wreck havoc on their pysche, and may indeed be considered ‘cruel and unusual’
(whisper whisper) what?
so then what’s the fucking punishment then?
(whisper whisper)
30 days suspended from posting on a single message board?
oh.
then the word “draconian” doesn’t apply.
OK, think about that for a second…
Topic A is brought up. EC chimes in with “Yes, and it’s interesting how Topic A has connotations of bondage. For example…” Do you think you would have missed anything relevant to the discussion if EC had been filtered out? Plus, the replies are usually going to be of the “what’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?” genre, so you can dismiss those as being irrelevant as well.
I’ve been around message boards long enough to realize when a post is going to dissect hairs, it’s time to hit page down. Does wonders for stress.
You know, enough with the pretzel logic. She didn’t “specifically refer” to ANYTHING except the Brooklyn Bridge. I parsed, logically, justifiably–and STILL parse, backtracking notwithstanding–that she was promulgating EC’s position in opposition to mine, and that position is that he is a martyr to the subject matter, and that his behavior is irrelevant. I STILL read her initial position that way, and see everything she has said since then as dishonest backtracking, and everything YOU have said since then as bizarrely attenuated bullshit in an attempt to hang on to an indefensible position that you had INTENDED to lob as a driveby but now find yourself forced to defend. Which you can’t. So shut the fuck up.
Now maybe you’ll just say what you mean in the future instead of tossing these cryptic little clever-bombs. Perhaps if you had forced yourself to actually say what you meant, in the process of putting it into actual words you woulda seen how frickin lame it was and we all mighta been spared this asinine tangent.
Nah.
Cite please, where anyone says any such thing?
Far as I can tell, the reaction has been to respond to speech with speech.
No dragons, check. So what’s the word for “of or relating to hamsters”? Cricetian?
I suspect that was a whoosh, I think Ludovic was doing a duffer imitation.
You don’ have any right to say that.
Yeah, that one whooshed so fast it produced a sonic boom.
I just want to point out that, for a thread about a poster who’s widely unpopular due to his obnoxious hijacks, this thread sure has a lot of obnoxious hijacks.
You want all this shit to get a thread of its own? It’s better this way. 
Or, you could acknowledge that I made a perfectly cogent explanation here, which excalibre quoted and responded to at the top of page four, two posts above yours and you chose to ignore because you were mid-hissy fit. Nor was he the only person who pointed that post out to you. You then announced you were leaving, and I took that to mean you wouldn’t be back (silly me).
Thank you, Lute and others for attempting to explain, but I don’t think lissener wants to be reasonable. It isn’t nearly as much fun as self righteous indignation and mortally offended sensibilities.