I suck at math, but isn’t 3 out of 21 something like 14% of your posts for this week? That seems kind of high to me.
I do notice monikers–it’s about all I can tell about a person at first here. Why the “evil”? If bondage is so great and you want it to be more mainstream (if I’m following your argument), then why not something a little less extreme?
I’m not into bondage in any way shape or form (except emotional enslavement but that’s another thread)–but I don’t care if anyone else is. As long as there are 2 (or more)consenting adults–I don’t care what you do, in the privacy of your home or place of business.
That doesn’t mean I want to hear about it, read about it, stumble across it. I won’t go into threads with obvious titles, but lots of adventure films have scenes of “bondage”–hell, Batman and Robin were continually tied up in the old TV series. Star Wars apparently had one with Princess Leia chained to Jabba the Hut. Perhaps that is not what you meant–but one could warp that type of “bondage” to refer to the other more sexual kind. I’m not sure if you do this, EC–but it sounds like others may think that you do. That would indeed get tiresome quickly. Stuff like the Jabba the Hut scene–the bondage acts as a somewhat subtle touch–you’re supposed to get squicked out by the danger Leia’s in–not get off on the thought that Jabba’s gonna get him some captive pussy.
Re the thread–I don’t see why Dopers should be held to a higher standard than others in RL. If a guy starts talking about his proclivity for bondage at a party, he won’t be talking to me for long. Yep, I’m intolerant that way. The door swings both ways, though-that guy may drop me cold once I start talking about my kids. The difference is that one expects to hear about others’ kids in casual and polite conversation–one does not expect to hear about one’s sexual “deviances”. Why not start an “ask the guy who’s into bondage” thread to satisfy your need to talk about it, and to get it out of other threads? Just a thought.
All that said, I don’t mind that there are threads devoted to topics I find distasteful: I just don’t enter the bondage or NASCAR threads.
Not sure if I had a point here or not, so I’ll shut up now.
Not repression, but inequality. Justin_Bailey is claiming that men and women are as equal as we need to be and we can stop worrying about it. I’m not claiming that the difference is entirely due to the menfolk oppressing the women, but do you seriously think that men and women are equal enough that we can stop stressing out about it and get on to other things? I don’t. Last I checked, men still made more money than women, and women were significantly more likely than men to get custody of children in a divorce. We have some work left to do.
Well, this is hardly an unrelated thread if he actually feels “untolerated” at the Dope for his SDMB thingy. That said, don’t see why he gets to not include this thread in his ratio. So 4/21=19%. So 19 percent of EC’s participation here includes rape/bondage. You totally got room for four more tricks, m’pony!
To me, Evil Captor is just that guy who likes to constantly drop reminders of why he’s knowledgeable, cool or edgy. Like say, a guy who roadied for Metallica ten years ago. It’s awful funny how more often touring with a Metal band is pertinent to the conversation when he IS in the room compared to when he is NOT. I don’t put any creepy menace into the motive, as was more suggested in his last Pitting over this. I guess technically, EC is a BDSM nerd.
Evil Captor talking about bondage all the time doesn’t bother me It’s good to have a diverse group of people with diverse interests around, even if some of them are weird or even offputting.
I think this is the resounding notion. E_C, I know you said you were done with this thread, but I still have one more question. Do you honestly feel that you alternative sexual lifestyle makes us intolerant of you. I see it as a couple of Dopers find annoyance in you bringing up every now and then. But have you really felt that there are members here who would wish to see you leave?
If any other member has expressed this thought please point them out, because I would be one of the first to stand up next to you in defense. I think a better example, rather than Carney’s, of tolerance on this board would be from this recent Pitting. In which **Johnny ** Pit’s another member for sharing the fact that he is turned on by a comic portrayal of violence against women.
Even though he has a sexual turn-on that can be seen as outside the mainstream he is almost uniformly defended. And later on in the Pitting** I** am the one guilty of bringing you up. I think the thread speaks for itself, pointing out that we members will defend our own if attacked. Even if the bondage thing isn’t our thing.
So chalk me up as one of those guys who can understand the needless reference as annoyance. But honestly, can you show us when your sexual acts themselves have been attacked with support?
Yes, there is still inequality out there for women and minorities. These things need to be addressed. Crying wolf over the “supposed” inequality over number of movies targeted at women, only hurts your cause by alienating rational people. Kneejerking only hurts the cause, and pointing at anything that seems unequal over and over, while ignoring the reasoning as to why it isn’t inequality, but is in fact market pressure, only hurts the cause even more.
Obviously, if women want more movies to be targeted to them, they should go to more movies in the theater. Since statistics show that they don’t, movie makers aren’t going to make a whole lot of them. Actually, movies are made in near equal number, most go straight to DVD or are made for TV, why? NOT INEQUALITY dipshit, because the numbers show that is how women prefer to watch their movies.
Now, if you could stop waving your arms and crying wolf, and use some critical thinking skills, you would realize that. But you won’t, and people slowly stop listening to you.
I’m not trying to make the initial case for inequality. I’m reacting to someone else trying to make the case for equality, someone else pointing out a piece of evidence that seems to point to inequality, and the original person trying to refute it with a lame attempt to characterize made-for-cable movies as equivalent to theatrical releases.
I’m not trying to make the case that a single factoid is conclusive evidence that inequality exists. I’m simply pointing out that Justin_Bailey is using poor argumentation tactics, which I see happening most often in cases where the person “knows” they are right and discards critical thinking skills.
Which, interestingly enough, is what you seem to have done on the subject of me.
Poor argumentation tactics? You accuse him/us of spouting pure opinion, and when I offer a cite, you ignore it, going on and on about how the lack of movies targeted at women alone is proof of inequality.
You are also the one discarding the critical thinking skills, and the one that “knows” they are right. (and are obviously wrong, as per my cite and logic)
But so far, your proof that women are “unequal” is the oft-repeated (and constantly debunked, including a report from Cecil himself) meme that women earn less than men.
Show me something that shows there’s real inequality between men and women.
Meanwhile, I will point out that more women attend college than men and, on the subject of entertainers, Madonna and Britney Spears regularly outsell “male” acts during their tours all the time.
Oh, and this week’s Entertainment Weekly has their Fall Movie Preview on the cover. Of the four “featured” profiles, three are women.
I don’t see how I could possibly be one of the Usual Suspects (whoever the hell they are) since I’ve never before said word one about your proclivities. YOU brought them up here (in a completely unrelated thread, AGAIN) and even then I only took issue with your comparing being into bondage to being homosexual.
But if you want to see your self as persecuted and beaten up, be my guest. It’s kinda in line with your thing, anyway.
It might be “too much” if you think I’m speaking literally, which I suppose you might do if you snip out the part that makes it clear I’m speaking metaphorically. But I have a really strong preference that people refrain from “snipping” two words out of my posts, in a way that changes their meaning. I like you too, but don’t fucking do that, okay?
Well, I just thought it was just a funny coincidence of words; and the “snip” was added as a deliberate note that I was taking what you said out of context.
Apologies if you thought I was trying to misdirect your words.
I think we hear resounding cries of “Told ya so!” from Charles Fort and Thomas Kuhn. And Erving Goffman. And the cognitive sociologists. And the “discourse community” analysts.