See **EC ** you lower the Bar with your posts and the entire conversation just got dumber.
Jim
Kimera wrote this long post, which deserves a response even though many of the points raised have been covered in other posts.
You find me creepy for reasons that are hard to explain and don’t make much sense. What if I just said “Booga! Booga!” Would that make things easier for you?
Already covered. In another post I said that I understood that a lot of regular people are squicked by bondage because of its unfortunate associate with historical nonconsensual practices that are horrific in nature.
No, but understanding that sexual fantasies are irrational in nature, not the product of a rational process, is enlightenment.
And if I’d engaged in bondage fantasies with anyone on this board, you’d have a point. The casual mention of bondage aspects of a movie or TV show that appears to have gotten so many panties wadded up don’t strike me as all that much of a big deal. Perhaps you could explain how mentioning that Sheryl Lee gets tied up naked in John Carpenter’s Vampires equals bondage role playing?
Well, duh. Same with bondage. But I think most mainstream people think of bondage, if they think of it as all, as mildly kinky fun. Pointing it out in a TV show or movie is not that big a deal. And frankly, I think my perspective as someone who likes this stuff may add to the general richness of viewpoint on the board. ISTM that implicit in your and lissener’s and Ave’s posts is the notion that the only viewpoints about sex and sexual themes that should be presented are the mainstream gay and mainstream vanilla viewpoints. (In Ave’s case, maybe none of the above.) I disagree, and I’m completely comfortable in my disagreement.
The board has enjoyed an extended and widely spread riff on Hal Briston having sex with sheep. I’m with you on the notion that heavy duty sexual content of any type should have a warning, but I think there should leeway given for casual riffing and joking and such.
Yeah, except I already covered that point.
Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe we don’t disagree as much as you think. Now, does that make you feel creepy about yourself?
I said I got a non-sexual kick, but you have repeatedly ignored that. Mostly I enjoy the posts because they’re funny. Or at least I think they are. But the fact that you have so studiously ignored my point brings forth a new point.
One of the oldest and least reputable tricks of people who wish to repress sexual discussion is to claim that those who advocate it are getting off sexually on the discussion in question, whatever its nature. It’s a very handy tool from their point of view, because then of course anyone who advocates FOR sexual content of any type is only doing so because they hope to get off sexually on it. You win the argument without actually having to argue. It’s stupid sleaze disguised as an argument.
No one wants to repress sexual discussion, you thick-headed cretin. What people are saying is they don’t appreciate sexual remarks by you in discussions where it’s completely irrelevant.
If you have any argument beyond sex/bondage=inapprpropriate at all times, bring it forth. Otherwise, you would be well advised to follow your own advice.
I don’t see why I hold the sole responsibility for keeping the comments on this board on an elevated plane.
I’d also like to thank Inky Dink, jayjay and miller for their more level-headed comments. They are appreciated.
Thank you, Guin. That’s about what I would have said, except for the “thick-headed cretin” part.
Just for the record, the only reference I have made to Evil Captor’s kick being “sexual” was in post # 201 (top of this page) in which I said:
I have no idea where the accusation of “repeatedly” saying that it’s sexual in nature came from. If someone has cites I’m willing to admit error. I also think now I should have included IMO and YMMV along with my expression of doubt about the nature of his exhibitionism kick.
IMO. YMMV.
So . . . your defense against several people specifically characterizing your individual behavior is that the same accusation is sometimes wrong in other situations? You still can’t take responsibility for your own behavior, or engage with the specific criticism of it from some of the individuals who interact with you, specifically, in actual–non-hypothetical–exchanges.
That’s just lame.
You’re not a martyr to general, hypothetical debate tricks, EC. You’re a specific individual whose actual behavior is being commented on by non-hypothetical indivduals in a real-world situation. Engage. Absorb. Intake.
I don’t regret opening this thread. It’s still not fucking funny when people follow you two around with poking sticks. Is there anybody left who wants to fight with me about that, by the way? Not that I’m complaining about the hijack. It’s been very…informative.
I’m sorry, confusion there, I was refering back to a little earlier in this thread. You said “How about option C – you people are completely fucked up.” This led to several less than bright replies.
I was still harping on my “Isn’t it better to keep the high ground in an argument? Quite often it infuriates the other side more.”
Jim
Hey, I am a Republican. And a conservative. (Just not one of the new-fangled kinds.) (And a bit of a technocrat)
I just happen to know people who were satanists at various points of seriousness in their life, from teenage stupidity to, honest to god second generation brought up in the family sorts.
They’re no worse than any other variant on pagan, really. And slightly less wooly-headed than some.
You have it backwards. I am saying that there is a general line of argument for repressing sexual content in any speech, to the effect of, “He (she) is just using it to get off sexually!”
It’s useful for the same reason it’s unproductive: the only person who is really in a position to know whether or not they are getting off on it is the poster themselves. They may deny it, as I have, but still their character is smeared. It’s just a particularly ugly form of ad hominem attack. There’s a story about Lyndon Johnson using the same technique when he was campaigning for state office in Texas: He called one of his campaign aides and told him, “I want you to start a rumor that Senator Blartfart fucks the pigs on his ranch.” The aide responded, “But Senator Blartfart isn’t a pig fucker.” “I know that,” said Johnson, “I just want to make him deny it.”
Since no one has suggested further lines of argument here, I will. I think these lines would probably work well as their own separate threads, though.
-
Lissener’s contention that some kinds of sexual fantasy are bad for the fantasizer. This would make a pretty good Great Debate, if Lissener has anything to back up his contention.
-
It’s been suggested that my posts disturb “people.” I don’t think that’s necessarily a good standard for what does and doesn’t go on a message board. If you set the standard for posting on a message board so low that posts are thrown out if they disturb even a few members, what you tend to wind up with is a pretty darned dull message board. But where the standard should be set might make a nice debate.
Wow. The delusions you labor under, EC. This is all just a conspiracy to silence your utopian vision. You are the messiah, and we’re all the infidels of repression.
Wow.
You still preach that someone who has not developed the EXACT same sexual tastes as you is just in denial of their true self; that it’s not YOU we’re trying to silence so much as our own inner fears.
Wow. I have to say that this thread has accomplished something. I’m no longer as annoyed by you. You’ve revealed yourself to be such a pathetic, delusional freak that I’m developing an almost paternal pity for you. So you have managed to elicit more sympathy from me than you had at the outset. I hope someday, somehow, you can find your way to getting some help.
(This was a response to EC’s previous post, not the intervening one in which he 1) tries to divert into a debate that’s been pretty exhaustively covered elsewhere and 2) offers a false dichotomy and invalid slippery slope built entirely of straw.)
lissener, while I think you can be pretty bullheaded when it comes to discussions about movies, I have to say I’m enjoying your very appropriate smackdown on Evil Captor.
I’m seriously sick of all of the weird sexual references (and I said so in the last Pit thread as well), so I’m very happy someone is putting him in his place.
I salute you.
I agree with you that the poking needs to stop because it’s annoying and only furthers his martyrs complex. However, can you see why people do it now? With his attitude, it’s kinda hard not to sometimes.
I was referring to my poor English skills. One of the reasons why I post here is to work on better communicating my thoughts with others because I am horrible bad at it. Others apparently found my arguments sensible and understandable.
No, some people are squicked by bondage just because. Equating it with non-consensual sex is not the only reason a person might be squicked by bondage. And that’s perfectly alright and normal.
Just because they aren’t a big deal for you doesn’t mean that they aren’t a big deal with other people. People have different comfort levels. I have a friend who was raped in a “BDSM setting” and any talk of BDSM stuff, no matter how mild, triggers bad memories for her. Now she is an extreme example, but it doesn’t require much effort on your part to put a short warning on your bondage posts before you make them.
It is hard to say exactly where a comment passes the line from harmless fun but if multiple people say that they are disturbed by your posts then it would be polite of you to tone them done or put a little warning before hand. The mods did tell you to talk about the subject less which implies that a fair amount of people complained about it.
If the bondage is the only thing that you are into then I am already a hell of a lot more creepier than you. However, I purposely avoid saying things which creep others out or make them uncomfortable. Unlike you, I respect others people’s boundaries and keep my dirty thoughts that would disturb others off this message board.
kimera -thank you for your thoughtful and insightful posts in this thread. It’s made BDSM almost respectable to me! 
Seriously, it’s (almost) like anything else–no-one wants Bush dragged into every thread or fill in any Doper’s obsession here as well. The subject matter is more sensitive, but to me it’s the underlying principle of don’t be a one note Doper/poster/person.
Rigby-easily squiked out and not into bondage etc at all. YMMV (just don’t share it with me!)
kimera, I don’t know WHY you think you have poor communication skills. That was right on the money.