Jeebus, lissener I don’t post about bondage in threads that don’t already deal with the topic in some way. I don’t start bondage threads (I can start the occasional bondage thread in accordance with my agreement with the mods, but it seems simpler not to start them as a general rule.) So how the hell am I confronting people with my fantasies around every corner? C’mon, admit it, you’re uncomfortable with bondage as a topic and you wish it would never come up. Per my agreement with the mods it’s not going to come up very often from me. But unfortunately for you, I’m not the only one here who posts and starts thread on bondage-related topics. Maybe you should propose a general ban on the topic to assuage your and others’ peace of mind. It might very well go over big time with the bulk of posters and the mods.
Sure, but it helps. In any event, most of the time when I post, I post because I honestly think people are Getting It Wrong. You seem to be asking me to let posts which IMHO display ignorance pass unchallenged. I don’t feel I need to do that.
Oh great, this jackass now. Well, all right, if it wants to play…
Sweet, I’m glad you made it to the party - and thanks, I do try my best when it’s my turn to host these little shindigs. I hope you brought your gimp suit and a lot of bottled water, because it’s a long time before the sun comes up.
Knowed Out, I know you’re just trying to get me to break up with Martin Hyde and go out with you, but it’s not going to work. I stand by my man. Your little tempress ways won’t sway me, no matter how big you keep trying to show me your dick is.
Sure. The main reason I answered your post is that I get the impression that many of the board think bondage=SM=slavery=domination. They are unaware that people who like bondage can not like SM, or that people who like SM can not like bondage.
Scuze me, but may I have this dance? I think you should stop trying to get people to “admit” they have a problem with bondage, even if you sincerely believe they do. You can even just state they do, and let them refute it, if you feel you must, but this “admit you’re a bigot” stuff is bush league.
Do you honestly not see that this paragraph explicitly proves almost everything I’ve said above?
And thanks for sersiously thinking about my post, rather thank kneejerking with your preconceptions, most of which, as usual, are simply wrong. If you want to address my words, rather than your assumptions of my motivations, I’d be interested in continuing this discussion. Until then, have fun being all output and zero intake.
Threads of the recent past: my first encounter with lissener.
A good smart debate and sharing of knowledge on Fuel Prices. Bonus of **EC ** & **lissener ** both posting to it.
**EC ** never throws in anything about Bondage and contributes to the primary discussion. I didn’t remember him being in the thread.
Enter **lissener ** after the thread is months old and he starts flaming on the word choice of the Op. Does his complaint really belong in the thread at this point? http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6784510&postcount=234
He did stop but only after **tomndebb’s ** post to stop it.
Just thought this might be interesting to others in this thread. Hey Ensign Edison could you stop “squicking” me out?
I think you and EC have been locked horns over assumptions about motivations for quite some time now. I think he’s way the fuck off base about you, and I think you’re…fairly the fuck off base about him.
Sorry, What’s Jim’s Exit. I’ve been on the internet for almost fifteen years, but I still don’t know how to find porn on it, so I have to make do with the Pit. :o
I’ve thought about it and I’m just not getting what you mean here. Can you point to some specific thing or things I’ve written that lead you to this conclusion?
OK, you’ve got me on that one, but I don’t think I’m any different from anyone else in this respect. I do in fact think my position on sexuality is morally superior to others’, specifically the mainstream one that has its origins in Judeo-Christian morality. And it’s not really just my position. It’s primarily the gays who came out with the safe/sane/consensual sexual ethos, which was adopted by the BDSM community, and which I honestly feel is superior in every respect to traditional sexual morality.
My personal addition to this is that one’s sexual tastes are irrational in nature and don’t necessarily align with one’s social, political or religious views, and that it’s counterproductive, to say the least, to try to make them do so.
Here is probably the crux of our disagreement. I do not think my attitude is arrogant. I think I have a Better Idea, and I believe I have as much right to advance my ideas on this message board as those who have other ideas do. They undoubtedly think their ideas are better than mine. I’m cool with that. I don’t see that any of us are in a position to force our ideas on the rest of us. I do not see how simply stating my viewpoints constitutes forcing my “way” on others.
Sure. Where did I say otherwise?
Actually I didn’t think you were one of the angry posters. You’re using logic to argue with me. I was thinking more of the people who keep insisting that I post about bondage constantly and drop references to it into unrelated threads.
What sexual imperialism? Are you referring to my posts in CS which occasionally bring up bondage topics? How is that imperialism?
Note that someone else resurrected the zombie thread in question. I failed to notice the original date of the OP. Having just returned from a long hiatus, ALL THREADS were new to me; I read down the list, and responded where I felt moved to do so. No, I did not, as perhaps I should have done, check all the threads for zombie status. As soon as it was pointed out that this was an old thread that someone had, just before I happened upon it, bumped up to the front page, I moved on.
And no one is saying that EC is incapabe of discussing anything else, so you’ve proven exactly . . . what? My point is that it is my subjective opinion that EC tends to think of women as a set of breasts with legs and arms attached for the purpose of having something to tie to a bed, and a head attached for the purpose of putting makeup on. And when he inserts that sensibility into a thread that is not about BDSM, it’s insulting and misogynist. And it gets old. I, personally, would not ban him from ever mentioning it again. I would, if I were a mod, admonish him to be sensitive of the hijack factor of such irrelevancies, and of the impoliteness factor of blowing unexpected cigar smoke in someone’s face in a non-cigar thread. My crack about his “porn colored glasses” was in reference to my subjective sense that if any subject can be mined for a titty reference, EC’s the one to mine it. It’s come to be my impression (no doubt exaggerated) that if EC’s gonna come into a movie thread, it’s gonna be to talk about Judi Dench’s rack. Again, not something I’d argue to censor, but the consistency of his worldview (hence the “porn colored glasses”) gets old, and I’d claim the right to respond to it, the same way he claims the right to do it in the first place.
To summarize a messy paragraph I’m not willing right now to re-organize: First Amendment-wise, I have no objection to EC’s expression. With regards to issues of arrogance, impoliteness, and misogyny, however, I do object, to the extent that I will claim the right to point out EC’s arrogance, impoliteness, and misogyny.
Where do you get this from? Why do you assume that someone who’s interested in bondage would consider his partner in the enterprise to be just an object? You do understand that the second person in a bondage “scene” is, an overwhelming amount of the time, completely consenting in her (or his) participation, right? We’re not talking about some poor innocent soul who got plucked off the pavement and tied to a pipe in the basement. Bondage does not inherently objectify the person being bound, anymore than it objectifies the person doing the binding from the captive’s point of view.
What misogyny? Are heterosexual bondage fantasies, per se, from the point of view of the fantasist, misogynistic? What about homosexual bondage fantasies? Is it misogynistic only because it involves tying up women, or is there somehow something inherently wrong about bondage as a subset of sexuality that makes it misogynistic (and or misandristic, if we’re going to go the other way)?
This is the part of people’s reactions to EC that’s always bothered me…the idea that fantasies involving a fairly widespread fetish that’s 99% of the time practiced by wholly consenting adults is somehow wrong in and of itself, and the accompanying hypocrisy (not directed personally at you here, lissener) when the people complaining protest loudly that they aren’t being prudish at all, oh no, not at all, it’s all that sick pervert’s fault for even mentioning that he likes that kind of thing that we don’t really disapprove of, you know, as long as nobody talks about it as if it were normal and all…
I’ve considered pretty much ALL of the negative reaction to Evil Captor to be empty drama-queenery, even (maybe especially) when said reaction comes from Dopers that I normally respect and agree with. As I’ve said before, get over yourselves. Jeebus Christmas…it’s only sex!
It’s not so much that I think they’re bigoted, as that I think bondage is an uncomfortable thing for them as a topic. That’s not the same thing as bigotry, in fact, I don’t even feel there’s anything necessarily wrong with it. If you haven’t had much occasion to think about BDSM, you might very well find it an uncomfortable topic, becuase so much of human history has involved nonconsensual BDSM-like practices imposed on people in a most vicious and foul manner (think slavery, think torture, as historical practices).
You are probably right, though, my posts on this topic have probably come off as accusative. The reason I bring it up with lissener is he seems to think that if I know of a bondage scene in a movie or a TV show that relates to a topic in CS, I shouldn’t bring it up, because in doing so I’m trying to force my ‘way’ on others. Whereas I just don’t think there should be any problem with me bringing it up, any more than there should be any problem with a gay guy mentioning how hot some guy is. Or as in my thread on strippers, a gay guy bringing up some stereotypes about male strippers from movies or TV shows. But lissener seems to object to the very mention of bondage elements in a TV show or movie, just as people once felt free (and on other boards undoubtedly still feel free) to object to the mere mention of gay elements in a TV show or movie because it was/is trying to enforce their ‘way’ on others.
I will not accept the highly offensive, fundamental “plank in your platform,” that gays’ insisting on their rights to love whom they want to love translates to “anything having anything at all to do with sex is hereby declared morally neutral.” That is a gross perversion of the “point” of gay civil rights.
YOu’re still insisting I change your mind. I’m not an evangelist, unlike you. No matter what brochure you’re trying to force on people as they leave the train station, you’re still being an evangelist; a missionary; by exaggerated metaphor, an imperialist. You’re so convinced of the moral superiority of your position that you seem to think it’s your duty to witness to people who don’t want to be witnessed to; that the fact that you’re “right” and they’re “wrong” trumps their right not to want to listen to the stuff. THAT’S what I meant by imperialism. THAT’S what (is my sense) that people object to about your thread flashing.
My objection to your behavior is less about starting threads–although I think that threads that celebrate misogyny should be at the very least remarked upon–than it is to your casting your porn-addled gaze over every irrelevant thread and finding a way to go “titties!” in the middle of it. AGain, not a first-amendment issue; a childish impoliteness issue.
jayjay, your defenses are all of BDSM in general; my points were about EC specifically. Most of your assumptions about my general ignorance about BDSM are mistaken.
Will you elaborate on why you feel EC’s bondage posts ‘celebrate misogyny’? From what I understand, it is not, as jayjay is concerned, because you think anyone who likes to tie up women who want to be tied up is a misogynist, but rather because you feel EC only ever thinks of women in that way. Would you explain why you think so?
What if, you arrogant dismissive fuck, you HAVE had occasion to think much about BDSM, and you have philosophical objections to it? Maybe I’m gay because I just haven’t found the right woman yet?
Why don’t YOU find an occasion to think about why someone might have philosophical objections to the sexualization of humiliation and violence, you arrogant prick?
I don’t agree with you simply because I haven’t thought about it enough? Fuck you.
Er…what is the difference between someone having a philosophical objection to the sexualization of, say, the anus, and someone having a philisophical objection to the non-violent and often non-humiliating act of consensually tying someone up?
If the objection is ‘and therefore you should not do that’, it’s invalid. If it’s ‘and therefore I have a right to ask you not talk about it’, it’s partially valid, in that anybody can ask that of anybody else at any time, but it’s certainly not some kind of trump card.
An inclination of BDSM - in whatever format it takes, is nothing to be frightened of, it is NOT an indication of mysoginistic tendencies (Know of any dommes out there???), it is not a predeliction of “being sick”.
I live in a house that was - in years before I moved here, a professional dungeon here in the Bay Area. You’d be surprised by some of the MOST FAMOUS NAMES who came here to - a) NOT enjoy physical sex, b) see some incredible, intelligent, competent women be domanatrixes - or even professional submissives, c) be able to get a sexual release from the MIND that society has practically demonized.
There is an excellent book I just read and reviewed (I won’t publish the link, but if you Google her book you might find it - or other great reviews) about a professional submissive. SHE enjoyed being a bottom. SHE enjoyed being tied up. SHE was intelligent, independent, and a feminist.
Check out Joan Kelly’s The Pleasure’s All Mine: Memoirs of a Professional Submissive. It’s new, it’s really incredibly well written and she basically lets you walk around inside her psyche and see - oh, so its really not all that bad, is it?
Seriously, it sounds like you really might gain something of value by reading this book. (I’m not ripping on you - I am serious; I happen to believe education should help eliminate fear or misunderstandings…) I’d even be willing to send you a copy through Amazon, just so you could see there isn’t as much to fear as you think.
First of all, the specific fantasies of EC–at least those expressed here–are explicitly misogynist. What’s NOT misogynist about the accoutrements of rape? And if you want to argue whether fantasies of restraint equals fantasies rape, then you’re on your own. And if you want to argue about the morality of fantasies, we’ve done that too. You may believe fantasies of rape are morally neutral. I’m not going to try to change your mind. I believe fantasies of rape are NOT morally neutral. I’m somehow unable to communicate that here. In the thread on that subject, only one person agreed with me. IRL, when I’ve discussed this with serious intelligent people–my reading group, my movie group, my writing group–the agreement is 100%. So there’s a breakdown in communication somewhere. In any event, that’s not the point.
No one is talking about practices between consenting adults in the physical world. We’re discussing primarily language and imagery, insofar as we’re discussing what takes place here, at the Dope. My impression of EC has come to be that when I see his name in a movie thread, I’m conditioned to go, “Oh great, he’s gonna talk about how hot this chick’s tits are,” or whatever. Of course it’s not 100% of his posts, so don’t bother to search out examples. It’s an overwhelming enough percentage of them that it really has become a conditioned gut reaction that his name makes me expect that the word “rack” is looming. I’m not suggesting he doesn’t have the right; I’m only calling it reductive, objectifying, and misogynist.
