To head off an inevitable straw man: I am not saying, “therefore you shouldn’t do it.” I’m only trying to explain why I don’t personally consider such things to be morally neutral.
Thank you for that post, lissener. It made your position much clearer to me. I disagree, but I see where you’re coming from.
OK, there was no bondage mentioned in the post. And to be fair, my response was not out of the blue. There had been a questions about the politics of celebrities running for office in California, and I remembered that Mary Carey, a pornstar, ran for office as a Republican (among others I mentioned). So, OK, the bit about the poster might have gone too far, but when you have pornstars running for Governor, the jokes just write themselves.
The mods didn’t forbid me to talk about all the things you list, just to cut back on discussion of bondage and related topics. You’re taking a pretty broad swipe there.
Yeah, 'cause freedom of speech means nothing when it comes up against the interests of the Easily Squicked. We should probably forbid discussion of gay topics, too, I’m sure they squick a lot of people who don’t choose to take a stand. the New Silent Majority is here!
Because it clearly wasn’t a consensual encounter. There was some discussion that she might have been paid for her “service” but she was clearly a shepherdess, so she wasn’t a pro or anything. It’s still brutality to treat someone like something much less than a person, even if they’re used to it.
I think it’s OK to do the OCCASIONAL joke, son. Helps keep things rolling along.
I think you’re more right than you know. I was just looking over EC’s posting history for more posts to strengthen my point because I expected him to return and argue about the interpretation of his post on the shepardess rape, but instead I found a post that indicates that he is aware of the nonconsensual aspect of uninvited explicit sex talk.
In this thread the question “Ladies, would you be offended if a guy told you that you are often the subject of his masturbation fantasies?” was posed.
Evil Captors first response was post # 15:
Medea’s Child responded (in part):
And he responded in post # 26:
In light of this, any protestations on his part that he is unaware of the nonconsensual vulgarity of his habit can only be construed as a total lie. IMO.
OK, I think I get it now. You are saying that the psychological underpinnings of bondage and bondage imagery is rape, that if you tie someone up during sex that at some level, it must be about your having the power to do with them as you will, however they feel about it. I can accept that for the sake of argument. So any bondage imagery is also rape imagery, even if the person tied up is a willing partner.
Do you also feel that women who like being tied up should be forbidden to post about bondage generally? Or women who like to tie up men, or other women? Or are you only squicked by guys who like to do the tying? Because as has been pointed out, there are many more subs out there than there are doms.
And the reason I have continued conversing with you is that I sense you are trying to communicate – as I said, using logic and so forth. And I personally enjoy debating with people online, so long as there’s a chance of communication.
Yeah, such people can be tiresome. My feeling is that as long as you are satisfied that you have expressed yourself as clearly as possible and covered whatever ground you wish to cover, it’s OK to quit the argument. Most folks who MB a lot recognize the “outlast” approach for what it is.
You have me curious, you don’t see a difference between a message board (a great one) and the Real world. EC was clearly showing he is mature enough to not freak someone out IRL.
This is a message board, I see many things that freak me out at least a little. If it ain’t illegal, I learn to live with it.
If I took your attitude towards my pet peeves I would want a ban on talking about Intelligent Design. That really freaks me out that rational people treat it as something that should be taught in a science class.
Again this is my problem, not the defender of ID.
Jim
“Just kidding” is the refuge of the coward, who wants to get in his licks but not to take responsibility for them.
Not always, sometimes it is for real. I have had a lot of post meant in jest taken the wrong way. I am not saying this is true in this case. But your post is not truly valid.
Change Coward to Snarky Borderline Jerk and it would be more true. 
Jim {just kidding}
Have I argued for forbidding anyone to post, generally? Have I made this the First Amendment issue you’re struggling to shape it into? I think it’s appropriate for the moderators of a private board to point out when someone is intruding into others’ emotional space beyond what is polite and mutually respectful. I’m not entirely on board with them forbidding it, but I think that if any one particular poster makes a habit of making other participants uncomfortable, that specific poster and his specific behavior can be examined, in light of how it affects the community as a whole. Ideally, that poster would respond by being a grownup and to stop blowing smoke in people’s faces if they ask him. If not, at some point I think calling a bouncer over is worthy of discussion. Inasmuch as any “speech” behavior is worthy of remark-up-to-banning at the SDMB, continued annoying speech–no matter the subject matter–is worthy. HOw do you extrapolate from that that I would censor all individuals from discussing a particular subject? Again, you’re painting yourself as a matyr to the subject matter–like december complaining that he’d been banned for being a conservative.
You’re not being taken to task for being into bondage. You’re being taken to task for being a jerk about it.
Apples and oranges, Ave. The thread in question was about personally telling someone face to face about your sex fantasies, in the workplace. I contend that’s a VERY different thing from posting about them in the anonymity of a message board. There’s no personal interaction here. It’s a relatively safe place for such expressions. I don’t talk about my sexual interests with most folks I know IRL for the reasons cited in the posts you cited. Are you really saying real life is just the same as as message board?
Insert “Here at the Dope” at the beginning of my axiom, and “often” between “is” and “the.”
K?
I do get a kick out of it. Just not a sexual one. I do like to think about sex, and communicate about sex, and I’m not at all sure why this is wrong. I do write about sex, specifically, I write what’s been called erotica, and if my agent is lucky in NY in a couple of weeks, will soon be called “romance.”
Completely agree.
See, Ave? Either he’s incapable of understanding, or he’s being dishonest about it. I’m not sure anymore.
EC, in case it’s the former, please ponder on it a little further, within these constraints: Ave is saying no such thing. See if you can understand his/her objections, and my objections, within the parameters of logic and reality; consider that we have considered your position and still disagree. With that in mind, try this thought exercise: “What could Ave have meant, taking it for granted that there IS a difference between real life and a message board? Huh. Maybe that wasn’t his point then!” See what I’m trying to get you to do, EC? Don’t react to your first assumption about what Ave meant, if it entails the illogical position that there’s no difference between real life and a message board.
None of us can be as clear as we wish we were, but you can make a little more effort to understand what he’s trying to say, without latching onto the first, most illogical, interpretation, and riffing off of that.
I don’t know that he is mature enough IRL not to freak someone out because I do not know him personally. People can put on personas on messageboards that bear little resemblance to how they actually interact in real life.
However, I think a message board can be compared to a series of conversations, and in this case with the example I posted, he is clearly aware of the nonconsensuality of dropping explicit sexual imagery into conversation.
As you point out, it is entirely up to him as to what he choses to post (or talk) about here, but by the same coin, we are also free to interpret his continued habit of doing this as creepy exhibitionism, and further, to point out (with evidence that he is aware it is inappropriate) that his protestations of innocence are nothing but lies. Again my opinion, others are free to post their own.
Lastly, I would like to note that you have no way to know whether my participation in this discussion is based on a pet peeve or not, and I have at no point suggested any sort of ban on his posts. I am still waiting to hear from the mods.
I seemed to have read **Ave ** the same exact way. Wasn’t (s)he implying that the same rules of conduct should be observed IRL and on SDMB?
If so then we wouldn’t have 1000’s of threads on Politics and Religion.
Jim
You are correct, I am guilty of making assumptions there.
Jim
A) It doesnt’ much matter if you’re not sure; I don’t *have *to convince you to believe that it’s impolite and rude. If someone tells you that what you’re doing is rude, the polite thing is to stop doing it. It’s called manners. It’s not necessarily even enforcible. It’s just one of those things that separates jerks from non-jerks.
B) The fact that you get a kick out of it, of whatever kind, makes it trolling. The fact that you want to “use” me, and my emotional discomfort, or whatever reaction, because it gives you a momentary kick to do so, is monstrously solipsistic and rude, and is called trolling. (Discussing general behavior here, not accusing anyone of a “live” act of trolling.)
Bottom line is it’s ill-mannered. That it’s of a sexual nature, and that you get a kick out of it, adds a whole squickly layer to the bad manners.