Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    PC means "Politically Correct".

    Is S&M politically correct?
      Lord knows, 'cause I sure don't.  Then again, 'politically correct'
    is one of those concepts that raises the little hairs on my neck.
    
      Most of the folks I spend my time with view it a a consensual issue,
    not a political one.  And most of them maintain that obtaining _their_
    consent would be pretty tricky.
    
    Can one be a feminist and be dominant/submissive?
      I don't see why not.  Then again I've never sought the definitive
    Feminist Manifesto.
    
    Is S&M a feminist issue?
      Yes, in that equal rights to choose the nature and content of one's
    sex life is one of _my_ major causes.
    
    
    On S&M in general:  It would seem to me that a degree of trust in one
    another, not generally to be found just anywhere, must be present.  It
    also seems reasonable that people who feel that they must fight for
    total control in their everyday existence would find totally
    reliquishing it very seductive.  
    
       Ann

I'm sitting here rolling together submissive/dominant and consensual, and
wanting to rush to my dictionary. Is putting them together an oxymoron?
And if it is an oxymoron in the dictionary, is it in real life (I mean, _I_
know what a jumbo shrimp is!)?

obedient by agreement? ruling or controlling with permission?
	Mez

    I'm not an expert in these matters, but it's my understanding that there
    is very definitely a feeling of mutual consent between the submissive
    and dominant individual.  I've read that its often the "bottom"
    (submissive) who actually drives the direction and intensity of the
    activies more than the "top", albeit in an indirect way.  This is kinda
    supported by something I read awhile back, where it gave guidelines on
    how to be a good "top."  Such as not trying certain activities with a
    rank beginner etc.
    
    Personally, I don't see anything seriously wrong with S&M (or B&D)
    being politically incorrect for "feminists."  I'm sure that there are
    circles where it is, though.

One of the key concepts that perhaps you're missing Mez is that of the
"release word". The submissive partner has a "Release Word" that they
can use that means "Stop this right now I really mean it / I can't handle it
anymore". There are often limits as to time as well. "For this weekend", or
"tonight" are common ones. But this is really a minor point.

S&M involves the "consensual transfer of power". The sumissive partner 
voluntarily gives the dominant partner complete control. Notice the
"voluntarily" and "give". It is chosen, not forced. That's what makes it
consensual and is a VITAL component.

A healthy dominant (and most are) would no more like an unconsenting partner
than a healthy heterosexual (and most are) would like to rape someone.
Further, and this is important too, a healthy submissive would no more like to
be beaten, against their will, than someone would like to be raped. Clearer?

	-- Charles

Soem good reading if you are interested in this topic:  "Coming to Power",
editted by Samois, which is a Lesbian SM group based in San Francisco.  It
is a collection of short stories, essays and art work on SM and Lesbian
sexuality.  There is a long article in there by Pat Califia, a prominent
Lesian and SM writer/theorist/advocate on this topic, as well as articles
by others on the same topic.  I couldn't possible include all the points
she made, but it turned my view around.  The book is very hard to find in
book stores (read: impossible) but it can be ordered from Good Vibrations
in San Francisco.  I don't have that address offhand, but someone posted
it in the "women and pornograpy" string a while back.  An *excellent* book!

For the rest of this note, I will write something later.  I have a lot to
say, and a lot of what I have to say shouldn't be said here, or at least
not by me.  So when I sort out what's to say and what isn't, I'll post.

Just one thing: Mez, I have no idea about whether the definition of the
terms "submission" and "consent" are oxymoronic, but I know that in "real
life" they aren't.  Like Jumbo shrimp and military intelligence...;^)

D!

    re:-1
    
    Eagle, "Wouldn't Y'all like magic" etc,etc.
    
    Y'all is a big word. Here's where I like to be on a continuum.
    
    
    PLEASURE                                         PAIN
        <--X------------------------------------------->
           ^        
           |
    My favorite place
    
    Any combination of extremes is not for me.
    
    Kate
    

(kate)                       <<< Note 820.9 by USEM::DONOVAN >>>
>    Y'all is a big word. Here's where I like to be on a continuum.
>    
>    PLEASURE                                         PAIN
>        <--X------------------------------------------->
    
Ah, here's the big flaw.  It is so often that pain and pleasure are portrayed
as opposite ends of some spectrum.  Presumably "neutrality" falls midway
between those two points on your scale.

The problem is generalizing your scale.  While pain and pleasure are, for
you, dichotomous, they aren't for everyone.  (I won't even *begin* to
say "most", or "a few", or anything, because no one really has any idea how
"most" people's brains are wired.)

The scale for (some) masochists is:

GOOD PAIN/                                      BAD PAIN
PLEASURE                NEUTRAL
    <----------------------------------------------->

Perhaps, like in Warren Zevon's line "I'm going to hurl myself against the
wall, because I'd rather feel bad than feel nothing at all" it's

PLEASURE                 PAIN                    NON-SENSATION/NEUTRAL
    <----------------------------------------------->
 
Pain is really just extreme sensation.  Judgement laden terms like "hurt"
and "pleasure" are really personal labels, assigned according to your
personal preferences to various places along the spectrum of sensation.

And really, assigning linearity to it is kind of silly.  Do you really
believe that extent of feelings and sensations really deviated only along
one parameter?  I would say my scale is more like this:

                   "GOOD" SENSATIONS
                         ^    x "pleasure"
                         |     x "good pain"
                      II | I
     NO SENSATION <--------------> "LOTS" OF SENSATION
                     III | IV  
                         |  x "bad pain"
			 v
	            "BAD" SENSATIONS

My "favorite place" varies with time and mood.  Even "bad pain" can be 
desireable for other reasons.  Usually I want to be in Quadrant I,
sometimes in II and IV (more often IV) and very occasionally in III.

(Probably it's a mutli-dimensional space, and any attempt to really graph
it is surely leaving some component of sensation out.)

D!

    Re .8, Eagle, I guess we all have our own ideas of "magic" and none
    of my ideas of magic, in my sex life, or any other aspect of my
    life, would have anything whatsoever to do with S&M.
    
    I have no desire to play at dominating or play at being submissive.
     (My dream has always been to be *equal* with the men in my life.
     Isn't *that* funny?)
    
    I guess S&M is just another one of those things in life, like miniature
    golf and TV game shows, that I'll just never be able to comprehend
    why it is that other people like it.
    
    Lorna
    

    Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with discussions of S&M in this
    conference?  I suppose that's because I was actively noting in
    Sexcetera when it got shut down and a copy fire-stored in Corporate
    Security.
    
    Marge

    
    re:.12
    i'm uncomfortable with it too.
    

    re .12,.13
    
	I think that I would be less uncomfortable if I could be sure
	that everyone would treat the topic with an eye for keeping
	the discussion at a tolable level.  (Ya know, above the Jr.
	High locker room discussion of life.)

	I would request that anyone wanting "details" should send
	mail instead of putting it in the file.  This is a topic
	that can be explored publicly and should be.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Any CHOICE is based on available options,
			desired results, and personal preference.

    re .12 and others....
    
    I am uncomfortable also...and I find some inconsistencies in the way we
    are discussing S&M and Body Modification now and the way we discussed
    tribal practices in the conference some time ago.
    
    There are some subjects which are best left unsaid.  I feel that there
    are often influences which change our thinking and we then do things
    which we are not comfortable with because they are in fact politically
    correct or accepted by society.
    
    My thoughts are not defined on this...but as Marge said, it is not a
    subject that I feel is appropriate for a large audience.  

Is S&M against company policy? Is that what's being said here? Or is there a
level of explictness, surrounding all 'sex', that cannot be brought into a
notes conference? I understood it was the explicitness that shut sexcetera
down, but I wasn't around at the time.
	Mez

    Re .14, what on earth does your last question mean?
    
    I've never worried about whether anything was "PC" or not.
    It isn't even a part of my way of thinking.  (Maybe it's because
    I *do* have an imagination that I'm not interested in S&M.  Or,
    maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough for that kind of stuff.
     I do know it turned my stomach long before I become a feminist.)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    There's a note in the HUMAN::DIGITAL conference that chronicles the
    demise of the Sexcetera conference, Mez.
    
    In my recollection, someone extracted a note from the conference and
    placed it on someone else's (not a noter) desk.  The missive was not
    welcome and a formal complaint was lodged with Personnel.  The
    conference was shut down.  Many people who had used the conference felt
    it was the fault of the extracter, but apparently Personnel and/or
    Security felt that such material was inappropriate period.
    
    Marge

	 But this note is not explicit..........You are all confusing
	 me...I understand if someone was being rather graphic about
	 what S&M is....but a simple discussion about it and whether
	 it is "PC" or not, is not explicit at all.....

	 My thoughts?  Is S&M PC?  S&M is not a political issue at
	 all, its a private one.....what goes on behind closed doors
	 has no bearing on what goes on outside of those doors.

	 And, of course, you realize, don't you...that sometimes
	 submission == dominance.  :-)

	 kat

    Do you know whether the note that was exctracted and got the Sexcetera
    conference in trouble was any more or less excplicit than a discussion
    of S&M, PC or PI, is?  I opt for conservatism and keeping =wn= open
    rather than taking that chance.  I'll post the note number in the
    DIGITAL conference as the title to this reply, just as soon as I locate
    it.
    
    Marge

	A friend of mine told me this story:

	She was at a science fiction convention, and it happened that one 
evening she was wearing her leather & chains, and a male friend of hers
agreed to be led around on a leash attached to a studded collar.  A number of
people (both sexes) they encountered were amused at this little episode.

	Many of the same folks were not, however, amused, when on another
evening, they (willingly) switched roles, and she was the one in the collar.

							--Doug

	On the side topic - is S&M (or even its PC'ness) appropriate for
notes.  IMHO, there has certainly been a lot more screaming and name calling
and other "not the right, or at least the polite thing" in such "mainstream"
topics as guns, early civilizations & abortion.

	If S&M makes you uneasy, hit next-unseen.  As a moderator of other
conferences, I'd be hard-pressed to justify canning this note based on the
content so far, were I a moderator of this conference.  I'm sure we could
find folks who think the birth control note is morally objectionable.  I
do think there is a "good taste" factor in what should be placed here, but
I think we're far from it, so far.

						--Doug

    Doug, it's not a matter of "next unseen"ing past an uncomfortable
    topic...it's a matter of preservation of the entire file that concerns
    me. If you wish to discuss this further, perhaps we should take it to
    the processing topic.
    
    Marge

    
    just for the record, my reply .13 should not be construed to mean
    that i do not think this topic should be discussed.
    

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I think Peggy is correct:  as long as the responses stick to the
    *politics* of s&m rather than getting into detailed descriptions of
    practice, there should be no legitimate grounds for objection.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .28
    
    Maybe it's just that I've been staring at software manuals
    too long and my main processor chip has just turned into a
    crispy critter.  Or maybe it's just that I'm an earth-bound
    species.  But one way or the other, I can't figure out what
    you're trying to say there, Eagle.  Could you try that one
    again?
    
    adTHANKSvance,
    
    Steve (admittedly dense and/or confused)

Returning to the basenoters original questions...

I know that some people who are into S&M have lots of personal political
political reasons for doing it, as well as the presumed sexual ones.  I have
spoken with and read interviews with a number of female dominants who claim
to be so "out of a feminist philosophy".  One professional dominatrix said
in an interview that, while she doesn't feel women are *superior* to men,
she thinks men should be dominated sexually so that they will learn what the
role is like, so when they take their traditional roles as dominant in
society, they will be more concious of what's going on.

Myself, I am a little skeptical about choosing one's sexual interests based
on one's politics.  Whether it means female domination or Lesbian seperatism,
are people really happy who choose their sexuality based on theory instead
of preference?

I guess it could be considered feminist PC to be a female dominant, as long
as it is men you are dominating and not women.  In one of the articles in the
book I mentioned, "Coming to Power" (plug plug) Pat Califia talks about
the Lesbian-Feminist community's rejection of S&M.  She said that their idea
was that no woman anywhere should be submissive to anyone, man or women, and
that S&M was objetifying and demeaning to women regardless of who the 
perpetrator was.  (Ms. califia had a wonderful rebuttal to this argument
which I wouldn't even begin to do justice, so I'll just say that she didn't
agree with this idea, and read the book!)

Samois, a self-proclaimed Lesbian-Feminist S&M group, had t-shirts made
that said "The Leather Menace", in response to NOW's rejection of their group
as being "anti-feminist".  It was a play on the phrase "The Lavender Menace"
which was used when NOW was originally trying to keep Lesbians out of 
their midst - it was supposed to be a reminder to the folks in *that*
opressed minority that they shouldn't forget their roots, and turn around an
opress ohter sexual minorities.

As to whether female submission is PC - I guess not.  It's too bad that
feminists will turn to women who are experiencing opression and say "Yes,
but you *deserve* to be oppressed."   It sure sounds like hypocrisy to me.
As one female submissive friend of mine put it "If the feminist movement
isn't about making sure every women can be exactly what they want to be,
then what's it for?"

It is interesting to note that of all the male dominants I have met,  (I
mean dominant sexually, in S&M, not just a typical male-dominant personality)
almost none of them were "macho", or thought that women "should" be
dominated.  In fact, I would say that the dominant men I have met are
more in tune with *real* equality than most general population men I have
discussed it with - S&M goes both ways, and the only people I have heard
who say one way is "right" or "natural" are a few female doms.

I think this is a good topic, and I don't think it needs to become 
explicitly sexual to discuss it.  I don't think it should be squelched just
because it is contraversial - even I am a little uncomfortable with 
discussing the subject matter in a forum such as this, but I think we 
should look at those things that make us uncomfortable, ask why we are
so open-minded, but can't discuss this thing, and overcome our kneejerk
reaction and really *look* at it.

Getting of my soap-box now,
D!

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    <--(.31)
    
    The intended topic was and is the *politics* of S&M, Steve.  Marge very
    reasonably got worried that somehow the simple fact of it being about
    S&M at all would get us mashed.  She expressed no "negative feelings"
    and she didn't try to "channel discussion".  Peggy very correctly in my
    opinion pointed out that we're not actually talking about the
    *techniques* of any sexual activity, and that while S&M itself may be
    touchy and politically fraught, what we're saying about it isn't.  It
    was the uninhibited detail of various behaviors that got =sexcetera=
    closed permanently, not a political discussion.
    
    I think that any further process commentary needs to go to the
    processing string.
    
    						=maggie

re .21:


>	 My thoughts?  Is S&M PC?  S&M is not a political issue at
>	 all, its a private one.....what goes on behind closed doors
>	 has no bearing on what goes on outside of those doors.

    
    But the "personal" is "political", quite often.
    

    
.33>    But the "personal" is "political", quite often.


	 Not in my book.....


	 But then again, I never claimed to be a "political type of
	 gal".....

	 :-)

	 

    The personal becomes political when some political type sticks
    their nose in your personal business. All too often these days.

>    The personal becomes political when some political type sticks
>    their nose in your personal business. All too often these days.

Uh-huh!

Like even if you have no interest in the politics of S&M, but you enjoy it,
and you (*gsap*) want to read erotic literature about it, you are suddenly
making a political statement by (*double gasp*) supporting so-called
"violent pornography", that seemingly universally condemned anti-feminist,
anti-christian, and-motherhood-and-apple-pie propaganda!

D!

    IMHO - the difference between S&M dominance and the dominance we
    see around us every day is that in S&M the participants have a choice
    of roles, and even can switch roles if they wish.  That's not an
    option I've encountered on a regular basis in real-life, folks.
                                               
    HOWEVER, when S&M is depicted in "violent pornography," I believe
    there is a political (tho not sexual) responsiblity to see that
    the participants (i.e., models) are truly participants by choice
    and not participants by coercion or economics.
    
    All IMO,
    Karen

                ****Totally Tongue-In-Cheek Reply***

Actually, I heard that female nipple piercing was an old Jewish tribal  
ritual, the significance of which was similar to circumcision of Jewish
males. (This was Sarah's Covenant with God).

But the Patriarchy eventually decided that only Jewish boys could have any 
fun. Thus, nipple piercing of females was proscribed.

After that ruling by the Male Elders, Jewish females had to be be content with
having a silly glass stomped upon at their wedding ceremonies, to symbolize
the breaking of their collective hymens throughout the generations.

A poor substitute, I agree. :-) :-) 

  Alan

    All this political talk about S&M is interesting, and although I don't
    necessarily believe that wanting abuse of any kind is healthy adult
    behavior...an interesting point is that quite a few people who get into
    S&M have been sexually abused as children and the S&M sexual expression
    can become a compulsive behavior.
    
    The biggest objection I have to S&M is the "attitude" that participants
    in S&M have toward "vanilla" sex.  They ridicule and look down at
    people (wimps) who are not into S&M and view non-S&M sex as less than,
    not fullfilling and certainly not worth engaging in.  This attitude
    really irritates me and I have seen it surface, again and again, in
    just about anything I have read concerning S&M sexual practices.
    
    Laura
    

re. .39 (Laura)

>    behavior...an interesting point is that quite a few people who get into
>    S&M have been sexually abused as children and the S&M sexual expression
>    can become a compulsive behavior.
 
Where are you getting this information?  Very very few of the people I have
met who are into S&M have been sexually abused as children.  It is true, 
they might not be telling *me* their life story, but then, neither do the
general public.

I just happen to have a study here, published in "The Journal of Homosexuality"
by Breslow, Evans and Langley (Fall, 1986).  There was a study done of 272
men who were "into S&M", and one of the questions asked on the survey was
"Do you feel you were sexually abused as a child."  Of the homosexual men
who answered (84), 95.2% said "no", of heterosexual men (133) 94% said "no",
and of bisexual men (44) 95.5% said "no".  The total percentage of men who
felt they had been sexually abused was 5.4%, compared to a figure quoted
in this notesfile recently that said that 1 in 7 male children is sexually
molested.

The number of women into S&M is much smaller, and therefore harder to study.
I don't have figures on that, but I understand through readings and personal
experience that those numbers would fit well with females, as well.

Where are your figures?

As for whether it is a "compulsion", see below...

>    The biggest objection I have to S&M is the "attitude" that participants
>    in S&M have toward "vanilla" sex.  They ridicule and look down at
>    people (wimps) who are not into S&M and view non-S&M sex as less than,
>    not fullfilling and certainly not worth engaging in.  

Again, where are you getting this information? In my personal experience, for 
most people, even those heavily into "the scene", most of their sexual 
encounters are of the "vanilla" variety.  According to the same study 
referenced above, most of the men of all orientations categorized their
interest/commitment to S&M as either "foreplay" of "vacillating between
foreplay and a lifestyle."  (The choices were foreplay, vacillation, and
lifestyle, and other, which wasn't included in the statistical analysis.)
In another study by the same folks, appearing in "Archives of Sexual 
Behavior" (November, 1985) the same question asked to men and women
yielded similar results for both sexes.  In other words, very few people
into S&M consider their activities a "lifestyle".

Yes, I have seen this attitude expressed by "SMers" before, but very seldom,
and not *nearly* as frequently (proportionately) as I have seen strict
vanilla types express "ridicule and looking down on people" against SMers.

>This attitude
>    really irritates me and I have seen it surface, again and again, in
>    just about anything I have read concerning S&M sexual practices.
 
What have you read?  Really, I am interested.  As you can see, studies and
surveys of this topic are of interest to me.   I have read a number of
journal articles and scientific studies, a wide body of erotic literature,
and a number of "general population" articles on the topic, as well as
spoken and interacted with *numerous* SMers.  That is where *I* get *my*
information, and it doesn't support your statements at all.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I will assume that your statments
come from a general ignorance and prejudice that is rampant among the
mainstream population.

D! 

    
    re: personal as political
    as soon as one realises that every action one takes is likely to have
    an effect on someone else, one realises that the personal is, in fact,
    political. pretending that our actions 'effect no one but myself' is
    usually just that: pretending.
    
    my dear mr. (yawn) thompson, are you not getting enough sleep?
    
    

Sorry bout that folks, my last message probably got a little vitriolic.
However, I went to the gym and beat on a poor rowing machine for half an hour
and sweated most of the adrenalin out, so I can respond a little more calmly
now.

Some info I want to add to my previous reply... these are only single data-
points, and therefore are not conclusive, and do not prove anything.  But I
have no reason to believe they are particularly outside the "norm" in the
scene...

I have spoken with a gay man who is very heavily into S&M.  However, his SO,
primary sexual partner, live-in lover and main man is strictly vanilla.  He
does have an open relationship with his lover (of 10 years) where he does
participate in S&M outside it, but I think his lover would be very surprised 
to hear that he doesn't enjoy plain ole vanilla sex.  (well, I consider 
homosexual sex without any "kinky" stuff to be just as vanilla as heterosexual.
I guess some people would think otherwise.)

A couple who are good friends of mine are involved with eachother in a Master/
Slave relationship (for the past 3 years or so.)  While S&M is a part of 
their love lives, I know for a fact that it doesn't even constitute a 
majority of it.  Mostly they do what every other married couple does.  (Well
probably not, they tend to be more adventurous and less inhibited than the
'average American couple'.)

The list goes on but it's basically the same; long-term couples who use S&M
to spice up their love lives; people who are interested, but have an SO who
is not, and are perfectly happy continuing their relationship with them rather
than going out to find a non-vanilla partner...etc...

Not as angry now,
D!

re: .41
    
>>Where are you getting this information?  Very very few of the people I have
>>met who are into S&M have been sexually abused as children.  It is true, 
>>they might not be telling *me* their life story, but then, neither do the
>>general public.
    
    
"Because it is sort of a rite of passage into "the scene".  I'll bet you 
didn't want this answer, but I feel I have sort of become part of an "under-
ground".  It feels good to belong, to have partners in oppression, and sort
of a common "enemy."  And this is one more step towards really joining that
sort of "elite ranks" of that club."


The quote above is from note 809.33 regarding the discussion of nipple 
piercing.  The statements above are rather mild from other statements I have 
read from people who are into S&M.  I don't have the articles at hand, but 
I can look up the references as to the attitude issue that I was refering 
to.  I have mainly read about women's experiences and have talked to women 
who are into S&M.

Aditionally, I have spent a lot of time in meetings that support my 
recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction.  Since my observations re: 
people who have been sexually abused come from listening to personal 
stories in the program, I cannot cite a particular study from some 
scholarly body of researchers.  These are observations on my part based on 
some common themes that have emerged in this particular forum.  
Additionally, I would add that another element in S&M (a theme that has 
emerged) is general family dysfunction being in the picture and, perhaps, a 
contributing factor.  More often than not, the scene in an alcoholic or 
dysfunctional family network involves some sort of violence or abuse, be it 
physical, sexual or emotional...or a combination of all three.  There is a 
very real psychological link with abuse equating to love.  I'm not saying 
that this applies for all people who are into S&M sexual expression, 
however, it is a pattern I have seen.  Furthermore, I have had clinical 
experience (started a Master's degree and never finished it) and have seen 
    this pattern there as well.  I also know people who work with survivors
    of sexual abuse in their therapy practice, this pattern has surfaced in
    that forum as well.

Perhaps then, it may be more specific to say that lesbians who are into S&M 
are the ones with condescending attitudes towards vanilla sex, since they 
are the writers I have read and the women I have talked to.

As for the scholarly research approach, it is well known that good 
researchers and statisticians can work the numbers to their advantage.  If 
you choose to discount educated observations on my part, that is your 
choice.  However, your hostility was very interesting considering that the 
comments I made in my note were presented as ideas to reflect upon and not 
an attack on people's right to do what they wish in the bedroom.  I still 
maintain my opinion that consenting to oppression or abuse is not healthy 
adult behavior.  There is nothing in that statement that indicates that I 
want to interfere with a person's right to choose or that anyone else 
should interfere with it. 

>>There was a study done of 272
>>men who were "into S&M", and one of the questions asked on the survey was
>>"Do you feel you were sexually abused as a child."  Of the homosexual men
>>who answered (84), 95.2% said "no", of heterosexual men (133) 94% said "no",
>>and of bisexual men (44) 95.5% said "no".  The total percentage of men who
>>felt they had been sexually abused was 5.4%, compared to a figure quoted
>>in this notesfile recently that said that 1 in 7 male children is sexually
>>molested.
    
    And for these men, it may well be that they weren't sexually abused as
    children, or they may not have had memories of the abuse.  Since the
    ratio of abuse is estimated at 1 in 3 for female children, perhaps, as
    I said, the connection between abuse and S&M is more frequent among
    women.
    
>>What have you read?  Really, I am interested.  As you can see, studies and
>>surveys of this topic are of interest to me.   I have read a number of
>>journal articles and scientific studies, a wide body of erotic literature,
>>and a number of "general population" articles on the topic, as well as
>>spoken and interacted with *numerous* SMers.  That is where *I* get *my*
>>information, and it doesn't support your statements at all.

>>Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I will assume that your statments
>>come from a general ignorance and prejudice that is rampant among the
>>mainstream population.
    
    As I have explained above, I have read literature and I have talked
    with women involved in S&M.  That is where I get my information.  Since
    it doesn't correspond with those you have talked to, it is within your
    rights to assume that I am speaking from ignorance and prejudice,
    although I feel that that is a pretty dramatic leap of an assumption
    given that the tone of my note did not even come close to sounding like
    an attack on those who choose S&M sexual expression (and, by the way, I
    did not refer to it as a "lifestyle".)
    
    Laura
    
         

Laura,

I beg your pardon if I am misinterpreting your comments.  In your earlier 
note, you suggested that S&M practitioners tend to come from abusive
childhoods and to enter into the practice compulsively.  From your
.44, this appears to be an inference that you are drawing substantially
based on personal experience with a population who are suffering from
addictive problems, and who probably have been abused out of proportion
to the general population.

That is, it seems to me that it is not valid to conclude that S&M 
practitioners tend to approach S&M compulsively, when your sample
population has already been selected for its addictive behaviour
(and similarly for the issue of childhood abuse).

Is this a fair criticism?

	-Neil

    re: 45
    
    This is what I actually said in note .39...
    
    >>an interesting point is that quite a few people who get into
    >>S&M have been sexually abused as children and the S&M sexual expression
    >>can become a compulsive behavior.
    
    I have not said that all people who engage in S&M sex practices have
    been abused as children, nor have I said that all abused children get
    into S&M.  
    
    Since *25%* of the population is effected by alcoholism (either are
    alcoholics or have grown up in alcoholic families) the frequency and
    seriousness of the abuse it more wide-spread than we, as a society, are
    perhaps equipped to fathom or deal with on a conscious level.  The very
    sad reality is that abuse is not limited to a small handful of the 
    population.  
    
    Laura
    
    The 25% stat is taken from the Jan-Feb 1988 Harvard Business Review,
    pg. 120, by James T. Wrich in an article entitle "Beyond Testing:
    Coping with Drugs at Work."
    
                   

re: .41 (I think)
    
>>There was a study done of 272
>>men who were "into S&M", and one of the questions asked on the survey was
>>"Do you feel you were sexually abused as a child."  Of the homosexual men
>>who answered (84), 95.2% said "no", of heterosexual men (133) 94% said "no",
>>and of bisexual men (44) 95.5% said "no".  The total percentage of men who
>>felt they had been sexually abused was 5.4%, compared to a figure quoted
>>in this notesfile recently that said that 1 in 7 male children is sexually
>>molested.

    Maybe they did not feel they were "sexually abused" as children,
    maybe they WERE sexually molested and did not feel it was abuse.
    I mean, if they have a strong pleasure/pain connection, maybe abuse
    no longer equaled abuse by the time they grew up and reflected on
    it.....
    
    I don't even PROFESS to know ANYTHING about this.  So don't flame
    me.
    
    -Jody
        

	Re: .44 (Laura Ervin)


>"Because it is sort of a rite of passage into "the scene".  I'll bet you 
>didn't want this answer, but I feel I have sort of become part of an "under-
>ground".  It feels good to belong, to have partners in oppression, and sort
>of a common "enemy."  And this is one more step towards really joining that
>sort of "elite ranks" of that club."

>The quote above is from note 809.33 regarding the discussion of nipple 
>piercing.  The statements above are rather mild from other statements I have 
>read from people who are into S&M.  I don't have the articles at hand, but 
>I can look up the references as to the attitude issue that I was refering 
>to.  I have mainly read about women's experiences and have talked to women 
>who are into S&M.

	Interesting.  I seem to have gotten a very different message from
	that passage.  To me, it implies that those in "the scene" feel
	a bond (no pun intended) due to the fact that others look down on
	*their* sexual practices, not because those in "the scene" look down
	on *other peoples* sexual practices.  (which impression jibes with 
	what I've heard from people I know who are into S&M)


>Aditionally, I have spent a lot of time in meetings that support my 
>recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction.  Since my observations re: 
>people who have been sexually abused come from listening to personal 
>stories in the program, I cannot cite a particular study from some 
>scholarly body of researchers.  These are observations on my part based on 
>some common themes that have emerged in this particular forum.  
>Additionally, I would add that another element in S&M (a theme that has 
>emerged) is general family dysfunction being in the picture and, perhaps, a 
>contributing factor.  More often than not, the scene in an alcoholic or 
>dysfunctional family network involves some sort of violence or abuse, be it 
>physical, sexual or emotional...or a combination of all three.  There is a 
>very real psychological link with abuse equating to love.  I'm not saying 
>that this applies for all people who are into S&M sexual expression, 
>however, it is a pattern I have seen.  Furthermore, I have had clinical 
>experience (started a Master's degree and never finished it) and have seen 
>    this pattern there as well.  I also know people who work with survivors
>    of sexual abuse in their therapy practice, this pattern has surfaced in
>    that forum as well.


	I think I agree with Neil (.45) here.  Most of your information appears
	to come from a decidedly biased sample.  I don't think that patterns 
	observed in groups of people who are already selected for addictive 
	behavior and/or a dysfunctional family life should be generalized to
	the general population.  At most, you may be able to assert that there
	is a larger percentage of people involved with S&M in those groups 
	than in the population as a whole, or that people in those groups are
	more likely to become involved in bad S&M relationships than those 
	outside of those groups.


>                                                                  I still 
>maintain my opinion that consenting to oppression or abuse is not healthy 
>adult behavior.

	Ah, but doesn't the fact that one has *consented* to "oppression" or
	"abuse", as long as one has the option at any time to revoke that 
	consent, mean that it is no longer oppressive or abusive?  I mean, 
	if you enjoy a sensation, and allow someone else to stimulate you 
	so as to generate that sensation, isn't that okay?  (at least as long
	as you are not damaging others, or permanently damaging yourself,
	etc...)  

	The way I understand it, S&M is practiced as to be entirely consensual
	on behalf of both parties, and in fact, it is generally the submissive
	member who controls the extent of what happens (albeit indirectly)




	>>AL<<

It has recently come to my attention that this topic and some recent notes of 
mine (both existent and non-existent) have been generating some outside
discussion.  Specifically, some discussion about my self, my activities,
choices and life, and *me*.  While I don't at all mind being the topic of
conversation (especially when I don't know about it) I suspect that a lot of
the talk is conjecture, assumption and speculation.  

So I would hereby like to say that if you have concerns about me or my 
welfare, are interested in my life or parts of my life, are confused or 
curious, or find yourself affected in some way by my notes, PLEASE WRITE ME!  
I am a very open, very trusting person, and in general I am not prone to 
flaming.  I enjoy talking with people, even (especially?) those who disagree
with my views, and I would really prefer that people talk knowledgeably about
a subject than to speculate, when such knowledge is available.  In fact, I
have made it my personal cause in life, my "mission" as it were, to spread
*facts* and *knowledge* about these (and some other) topics, so as to foster
understanding and acceptence.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated, whatever your views, as long as
you do not flame, and if you seem open-minded and willing to listen to what
I have to say.  (That is *listen* - not agree, but try to hear and understand.)

Thank you,
D!ana

    Personally I fail to understand the relevance of the original question.
    How can something such as S&M, which if practised would be well
    within the realms of your private life relate to politics of any
    kind ? If you enjoy doing something and it isn't harming anyone
    else (unless, that is, they *want* to be harmed ;-) then shouldn't
    your personal politics reflect this automatically ? I don't see
    how someone can answer that question for you.
    
    
    
    				Jamie.

>    Personally I fail to understand the relevance of the original question.

 The relevance, in this context, is whether it is viewed as politically
correct for a member of a group to engage in certain practices, predicated
on the membership in that group. For example, one might ask if it is PC for
a traffic cop to belong to high performance auto club. While it is indeed
that cop's personal choice, it would quite possibly present a problem to
fellow traffic cops, especially if the club happened to operate on the 
fringes of the law on matters of speed, for example.

 I think the question is quite relevant.

 The Doctah

    In this case I understand the "political" to represent feminism.
    
    Surely in this context whether something is "PC" or not depends
    on the extent of ones politics; to what degree the individual supports
    the aims of the movement. Therefore the answer to the question can
    only really be answered by the individual since they alone know
    the level of commitment/degree of belief that they have regarding
    the movement. If an individual needs to have the question answered
    for her then I would question their understanding of what they perceive
    as their politics.
    
    
    
    				Jamie.

    Jamie, another way to phrase the basenote question would be "what is
    the place of s&m vis � vis mainstream feminist thought?".   
    
    It really has little or nothing to do with the extent to which an
    individual is committed to a feminist position; quite the opposite, if
    anything.
    
    						=maggie

    Mark, Maggie and What_she_said,
    
    Sorry. I took some time reading these 50 or so notes and lost track
    of what the basenote actually was. For some reason I thought it
    was by a woman asking if S&M is acceptable if she is a feminist
    hence my comments. I have now re-read the basenote and your responses
    and now follow the point of the discussion.
    
    In the (misunderstood) context of what I thought this note was about
    I stand by my opinions as earlier stated though! (But then I *would*,
    *wouldn't* I!)
    
    
    				Jamie.

Oh good, more meta-discussion.

I had some more thoughts on this, but I don't think anyone really cares to
discuss the *topic*, only to discuss discussing the topic.  Should I bother?

It is interesting to try and discuss a topic about which either no one has
any personal experience, or those who do won't (or can't) admit to it, and
bring that information into the topic.  Talk about no net information being
transfered....

Nevertheless real discussion is possible.  Perhaps we should rename the
topic "Is discussing S&M PC?"

Exasperated and disillusioned,
D!

>I had some more thoughts on this, but I don't think anyone really cares to
>discuss the *topic*, only to discuss discussing the topic.  Should I bother?

 I think so.

>Exasperated and disillusioned,

 Well, tell us what you know. We're all ears.

 the Doctah

<    this be a place to discuss how that _feels_ rather than denying that
<    anybody could ever _enjoy_ the freedom of not having to be in control?
    
    Now this is what may prompt a lot of discussion. The "freedom to
    not be in control". I can certainly relate to that as a sort of
    freedom. As an oldest child and growing up in the age of feminism
    I can relate to NOT wanting to have to be in control after feeling
    morally obligated to "act like an adult", "take care of your sister
    and brother", "act like a man at work or you won't get ahead", and
    finally from the comercial, "never let them see you sweat".

    Perhaps men don't get tired of this power/control trip, but I sure
    do. I'm not talking about sex necessarily but all aspects of life.
    To be able to relax and give up control to someone else for a while.
    Not forever, not always, not even all day, just sometimes.

    As for the general topic of S&M and being PC. If it's done by
    consent then PC it must be, it was consent that was the missing
    ingredient in male/female relations for so long. When you have the
    right to consent or withdraw you are free.

    But again I turn to the poets.
    ee cummings "the only slavery is serivce without love".

    Robert Graves "Nothing,agreed, is alien to love"

    liesl

I think that too often, yes, feminism is viewed as being about women
taking power in society and becoming the oppressors rather than the
oppressed.  The word "feminism" itself expresses this itself, by implying
that it's a "women-only" problem.

{Flame on}.  
    NO!  "Feminism" is about _everyone_ being free to be what 
    they want to be and are best suited for... and not being pressured by
    society to fit into a particuar mold because they were born female, or
    Hispanic, or without one hand, or...
{Flame off}.

So how does this relate to S&M being PC vis-a-vis feminism?  Well... 
as Eagle said, there are a lot of people out there who would have no problem 
with a woman being the dominant partner, but submissive, well... that's not 
as comfortable a concept... it's too close to the traditional mold of the 
"submissive female" for comfort.

So by labeling female submissivism non-PC, we've taken yet another step 
toward that ideal world where women will lead the world, supported by the 
"little men at home" who take care of the kids and all the laundry and 
all the cooking and all the housework, right?

On the other hand, if we label female submissivism PC, what are we saying
about pornography that portrays women as submissive _objects_, and plants
this idea in the heads of teenagers who snitch these magazines from under
their parents' beds?

To me, this is a subtle point.  "Comfort" and "Political Correctness" are
two very different things, if you define PC as "the freedom to be who you 
really want to be"; "freedom from peer pressure", as it were.

When I was in college, I went to an exhibit whose purpose was to define
what is pornographic, what is erotic, and, ultimately, what is permissible 
in society, and what, of anything, of this/these genre(s) should be censored.
The organizers of the exhibit had written some of their opinions under the 
various pictures, and viewers of the exhibit were asked to write down their
impressions at the end.  To say these opinions differed widely would be an 
understatement.  There were those who considered all of the pictures 
threatening to women (even the pictures of men tied up, etc.), and thought
they should be censored categorically.  This seemed to be the "politically
correct" view.

I had more of a problem with some of these comments than I did with a lot 
of the pictures - and there were some very powerful pictures in that exhibit.

Ceding power on occasion is not only a result of coersion, it is
also an opportunity, as is wielding power.  Is it PC only to reverse
traditional roles, or is it PC as long choose your own role and are comfortable
with that choice, even if it matches the role traditionally prescibed for
those with your genetic makeup?  To what extent do we equate acting submissive
with being oppressed?  Is that equation an attempt to split grey into black
and white, or does S&M belong in a different color category entirely?

To me too, this is an issue of consent and coersion, not one of sexual 
practices.  Coersion (a word which, admittedly, is wide-open for definition) 
is what is non-PC, to me.  Does S&M imply coersion?  Not necessarily.

Another vote for keeping the dialectic open...

    Sharon

    I think that we are guilty in this discussion of assuming that
    all feminist women who engage in s/m activities are hetero-sexual.
    And yes, there are lesbians who are into this scene.  Within the 
    lesbian/feminist community the un-PCness of woman/woman s/m has been 
    a hot topic for years. For a great part of our community, roles
    just aren't "kosher".  And how can one woman do "those things" to
    another, and still claim to love women?
    
    Folks, s/m is just a form of play.  Very few people live their roles
    full time - and not too many of the rest stick exclusively with
    one role. And not all s/m involves bondage or whipping, or whatever.
    Heck, some of it doesn't even involve sex.
    
    I think that we in America have lost our sense of fun and adventure.
    We seem to be afraid of anything that is outside the status-quo,
    and we are quick to condemn what we do not understand.
    
    
    -maureen
    
    

Firstly...

>    I think that we are guilty in this discussion of assuming that
>    all feminist women who engage in s/m activities are hetero-sexual.

Not me!  After all, the most informative and enlightening source of info
about feminism and S&M (to me) was "Coming to Power", which was 99% about
Lesbian S&M.  Some of the arguments worked just as well for het S&M.  Some
didn't...

Anyway, some more thoughts on this...

Say a woman does choose to be submissive to a man.  In some ways, the time
during which this occurs parodies the "real world" in which women are oppressed
by men on a day to day basis.  It is play-acting an extreme version of
opression - but instead of it being subtle and hard to prove, it is blatant.
All participants are fully aware of the situation, they live it and exagerate
it to the point of (from the real world) absurdity.  I could see how this
could be theraputic, perhaps even catharthic.

My father was involved in some of the more obscure forms of group therapy
when he was younger.  He recounts a story of a woman who's problem was that
she was abused as a child, and while she admitted it, she never admitted
that she resented her parents for doing it to her.  My father led an exercise
where each person in the group had to say "I hate my mother".  Even if you
didn't believe it, you had to say it, and for most people, it was just words.
This woman couldn't say it, couldn't force herself to - and the whole group
worked with her, over and over again, till eventually she was in tears, and
started saying over and over again "I hate my mother, I hate my mother".
It wasn't true - and through saying it, she realized that she had been terrified 
that it *was* true, and supressed all the resentment against her mother...
it proved a termendous breakthrough in this woman's therapy.

It seems to me that for some women, submission might prove similarly 
releasing - me, and a lot of other women I have talked to, who consider
themselves feminists, have this hidden fear that they really don't *want* to
be equal.  Putting yourself in a situation where you can say "I am your
slave and you own me" might be able to help you work through your own
mixed feelings about working towards equality in a "safe" environment.
In such an environment you can control the circumstances under which you
temporarily let go all societal expectations and perhaps come better come
to terms with those expectations.

Opps, I just realized that my use of "you" in the above paragraph might be
interpreted as my advocating this for all feminists.  Not at all.  Perhaps
I should have said "me", but that would be be PI and would perhaps tread
on some sensibilities.

Oh yeah, one more thought, on previously mentioned idea that it is PC for
a woman to be dominant - remember, the submissive is the one that is really
in control.  S&M centers on giving the submissive pleasure - I would say
that the dominant tends to be more objectified than the sub...

D!

    D!
    
    You made a good point about the submissive being in control.  This
    is one of the most often understood points about S/M.  
    
    Another might be that being submissive is easier for a lot of women
    than being dominant.  We have been taught for so long not to have
    power that it seems foreign and scary when you do have it.
    
    -maureen
    

>    I think that we are guilty in this discussion of assuming that
>    all feminist women who engage in s/m activities are hetero-sexual.

Whoa!  I hope my note didn't give you that impression!

In this particular case, what is relevant is not sexual preference
but the fact that women are portrayed as submissive in our historical
record; that the role seen as "traditional" for women is more of
a submissive role than a dominant one.  Therefore a woman who engages
in S&M practices as the submissive partner - whether her partner is male
or female - could be seen as "anti-feminist", since the role she is 
playing does not explicitly reverse the "traditional" female role.  By the
same token, the dominant partner, by "allowing" this non-reversal to take
place, could be seen as complicit in perpetrating traditional roles, whether
or not the role they are playing is traditional.

Since feminism is borne out of a desire to break oppressive societal molds,
it seems only relevant to connect any questions of what is PC in a feminist
context to the historical continuum.  

Is that clearer?

On another topic...

>    Does the S&M "scene" have anything to tell women about how to get
>    into the position of control - or perhaps how to overcome their
>    initial training to fit into a submissive role and let themselves
>    "take control" ...

This concept is not new, nor exclusive to S&M.  In fact, I would argue, 
it is even "traditional" behavior for women... ever read _Gone_With_the_Wind_?
Or, for that matter, Marabel Morgan?

	Sharon

>    ... hmmm ...  if S/M allows someone to practice being in control
>    from a submissive position ... it would seem idea for feminists
>    who want to succeed in business and in their personal lives.

Err...  I am uncomfortable with this interpretation of what I said.
The problem is that in a lot of ways SM *mocks* real life, but doesn't
necessarily imitate it.  It imitates it in that one person is in control
and the other isn't (or one group and another) - the *mockery* arises
from the fact that in actuality, the control flow is mostly in the
other direction.  That *doesn't* imitate real life (IMO).

What you are suggesting is that women should learn how to use the
submissive role manipulatively to take power behind the scenes - I think
most feminists would agree the women have been doing this for ages, but
that the power that the power that gains them isn't sufficient, or even
real - because the power structure in an S&M game is *not* identical to
"real life".  I, on the other hand, am suggesting that being in what *appears*
to be a role that really does have no power could be empowering to the
person in that role *because* it isn't "real"...because that person really
does have control, and therefore doesn't have to feel threatened by the
emotions that being in a submissive role usually produces.

I think in some ways to me (oops!) I mean to some people who give up power, 
what is so empowering about it is that, rather than that power being taken
away forcibly (like real life) or never even had at all, the power is
yours to give!  What a greater affirmation of your own power over your own
life and body than to be able to choose to *give* that power to someone
else, to be able to *decide* who, when, and to what extent to grant that
power to someone.

That is why the submissive is the one in control, because it is the submissive
who is allocating the power to the partners in the game.  And *that* is
why not only is S&M not *rape*, it is the antithesis of rape, for instead
of demonstrating to someone that their power is an illusory thing that may
be taken from them at any time, it shows that thier power is a very real,
very tangible thing that they may chose to keep or grant to others as they
wish.

Sort of like the difference between having money stolen from you and giving
someone and expensive and appreciated gift.

D!

>    With no intent to derail this topic ... have we not therefore
>    concluded that the entire idea of women in submissive roles and
>    anything (such as S&M games) that provides continuity of such
>    roles is therefore in opposition to the Feminist attempt to stop
>    women from being in a subservient role in our equality-oriented
>    society?   Are we then saying that feminists may chose to do S&M
>    role-playing only at the cost of being inconsistent with the basic
>    feminist philosophy that women should stop playing submissive roles?

Nope.  Actually, that was precisely the conclusion I was trying to thwart.
But perhaps this is better addressed in the context of another question:
does feminist philosophy strive to keep women from subservient roles,
or allow them to *choose* roles *for themselves*?

I vote the latter, and therefore do not find S&M practices necessarily 
inconsistent with feminism.

	Sharon

    re .72 (please read without assuming flames :>))
    
    Eagles -
    
    I think you are missing a very important point. And you're 
    getting caught up in the essence of the  "is S/M PC" question.
     
    There is NO relationship between a woman's equality and her
    choosing to be submissive. In the vernacular of S/M, a top
    is just as equal as a bottom.  Without one, the other wouldn't 
    exist.  Just as in a "normal" relationship, a woman is equal
    to her partner. Without that equality, the realtionship becomes
    abusive rather than consensual, also just like a "normal"
    relationship.
    
    And where in the world did you get the impression that S/M glorifies
    submissive behavior?  In accepting both submission and dominance,
    what s/m glorifies (if anything) is a free exchange of personal
    power.  Exchange is about the best word I can come up with for it
    as neither party really gives up anything without accepting something
    in return.
    
    Please listen a while longer to this discussion.  I suspect your
    conclusions on this topic are a bit premature.
    

    
    
    
    

>    society?   Are we then saying that feminists may chose to do S&M
>    role-playing only at the cost of being inconsistent with the basic
>    feminist philosophy that women should stop playing submissive roles?

>  ~--e--~  Eagles_See_Submissive-In-Control_As_Sophisticated_Rationalization

I hope you weren't getting that from *my* note.

Firstly, you'll see that I included the "sub is in control" as a side-note...
secondly, (in my last message) I was using it as an argument for why S&M
can be empowering, not for why it should be PC.  

It should be PC because the ultimate goal (IMO) of feminism is to allow
*choice* among women, and that is a choice women make.  (Personally I am
a humanist, I think that my own personal goal is to allow choices among
*people*, including the choice for any person, male of female, to be 
submissive...or to be dominant.)

And - you said "the basic feminist philosophy that women should stop playing 
submissive roles".  If that is truly a basic feminist principle, then indeed
S&M (at least with a woman sub) is contrary to feminism.  I would disagree
and say instead that a basic philosophy is (or should be) "Women should stop
*having* to play submissive roles."

D!

    Eagles -
    
    Sorry you thought I interpreted nastiness in my last reply. It was
    inadvertent.  But this is a difficult medium and in reading
    your reply I saw a common misconception that is the crux of the
    whole PC/SM confusion.  ersonally, replies disagreeing with my
    position don't bother me at all, but I do find it difficult to let a 
    conclusion I feel is wrong go uncommented - especially when it 
    perpetuates an image I find disagreeable -  The only acceptable
    role for a woman is submissive and if you position it correctly
    she'll not only accept it, but learn to like it.
    
    I understand that to learn one must ask questions, but to learn one 
    must also be able to accept corrections.
    
        
    
   
    

    Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this topic has been the
    relatively mild debate on what is a crucial aspect of women's
    equality, the right of choice. And that in a area that many dislike
    the very idea of it.

    Do you realize that we've discussed S&M more calmly than door
    opening? liesl

>    Do you realize that we've discussed S&M more calmly than door
>    opening? liesl

No.  We have hardly discussed S&M at all.  The issue has been carefully
side-stepped, overlooked, avoided and tolerated.  Most people are too 
uncomfortable to even discuss it, and so the discussion looks calm and
rational.  If it got too serious, if we actually starting *discussing* S&M,
the string would be quietly and nervously closed.

D!

>If it got too serious, if we actually starting *discussing* S&M,
>the string would be quietly and nervously closed.

That is, in fact, unclear, and, I believe, derived from an unfortunate
misunderstanding. Apologies have been offered.
	Mez

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Allegedly, the purpose of the string is to discuss the POLITICS of S&M,
    not the implementation details.  We cannot go into "graphic detail";
    that's just not on in a public-access file.   
    
    But It looks to me as though we are indeed talking about the politics
    of S&M in accordance with the topic title.  If you don't agree, D!,
    please send the mods mail explaining how we're being obtuse.
    
    						=maggie

    Umm, as the person who started the string, let me expand a bit on what I
    intended since it seems to be unclear.

    I guess I need to expand a bit on what "PC" means. Literally it means
    "Politically Correct" and I learned it from the gay community. There
    monogamy and safer-sex are PC, where promiscuity and anonymous sex aren't.
    The bar scene is not PC. Everyone *says* that these things are "personal
    choice" but there is disapproval. This disapproval is rarely overt, more
    often behind the back whispered gossip.

    These days mainstream america thinks small cute furry creatures are PC
    whereas fur coats aren't. Whales are PC, tuna is not (unless it's
    albacore. Albacore fishing doesn't kill dolphins. But I digress.)

    PCness is not about Politics per se. It's not about "intellectually".
    It's about subtle attitudes, mores, and approval. "Yeah, but would you
    want your daughter to marry one." is about PCness.  "Yeah, <X> is PC but
    do you REALLY believe it." is what that question asks.

    It was in that vein that I was asking. Yeah, S&M is intellectually a
    "matter of personal choice", but do you REALLY think it's ok? I think not,
    and I'd like to know why. Would YOU feel comfortable with a Top as a
    roommate? Would YOU think less of a woman because she was a Sub? How would
    YOU feel if your son or daughter (or wife or husband or SO) announced they
    would like to try S&M?

    S&M is NOT PC in most circles. Gay, lesbian, feminist, liberal, you name
    it most groups have a problem with overt approval of S&M.

    Try this little thought experiment:

	If S&M is ok, then graphic depictions of it should be ok too. If two
    	practitioners make a video and sell it, is that "violent pornography"?
	If so why? If not, why is "violent pornography" per-se illegal?

	-- Charles

Re.82

   > It was in that vein that I was asking. Yeah, S&M is intellectually a
   > "matter of personal choice", but do you REALLY think it's ok? I think not,
   > and I'd like to know why.

      Yes, I do think S-M is a matter of personal choice.  For me its just
      another form of foreplay.	

  > Would YOU feel comfortable with a Top as a
  > roommate? 

      Yes, as long as they were quiet after 11 pm and they or their submissive
      helped with the house work.
     
  > Would YOU think less of a woman because she was a Sub? 

       Never

  > How would YOU feel if your son or daughter (or wife or husband or SO) 
  > announced they would like to try S&M?

    I would encourage them to educate themselves about it and then give it a
    try with a partner they trust.  Mutual trust is very important!

  > S&M is NOT PC in most circles. Gay, lesbian, feminist, liberal, you name
  > it most groups have a problem with overt approval of S&M.

     Most westerners have a cultural bias/brainwashing that prevents them from 
     understanding/accepting S-M  ( or for that matter foreign customs like
     arranged marriages, dietary laws, animal sacrifice, etc.)

  > Try this little thought experiment:

  >	If S&M is ok, then graphic depictions of it should be ok too. If two
  >  	practitioners make a video and sell it, is that "violent pornography"?
  >	If so why? If not, why is "violent pornography" per-se illegal?

        Lets scratch the word pornography since no one knows what it means.
	And I think of violence as aggressive acts done in anger or hatred.
	So lets use the word stimulation instead.  Now if a film shows 
	a person being intensely stimulated by their partner is this a turn 
	on or a turn off.  For me it depends on how the submissive is 
	reacting to the stimulation, if they are getting turn on. then so do I. 
 	If they act like they hate what is happening to them then I don't care 
	for it.  (Though this could be a turn on for other people).  Why are 
	these acts considered illegal?  The answers are many and probably
	incomplete.

    
    
    	I can't see where this is heading. It's starting to sound like
    	the author a couple of replies back is trying very hard to say
    	he doesn't care what YOUR personal choice is, but rather you
    	should stop and think about how your peers would view this act
    	before you do make your choice. What does it matter if any group
    	thinks that S&M is PC or not? Should I base any of my choices
    	on what any group thinks is correct or not? If my partner and
    	I choose to do one thing or another, does anyone have a right
    	to say if it's correct or not? I think not!! The only people
    	who's business it is is the ones making the choice. I see not
    	thing one wrong with any choices two people FREELY make together.
    	Anyways, who are you or I to judge anothers action? Last time
    	I checked, GOD was still alive and well, therefore let's leave
    	any and all judgements up to him.
    
    	I really feel today's society, while saying everyone should
    	be free to make their own choices, is way too busy trying to
    	limit those choices by group pressure. Take smoking for an
    	example, non-smokers try to put pressure on smokers to quit
    	by making it PC correct NOT to smoke. Look at the ads on TV
    	against smoking, they don't point out the health risks so
    	much as they try to foster peer guilt trips. Same thing with
    	the anti drug ads, they don't try to explain the damage you're
    	doing to yourself. They do however have nice little phrases
    	such as "users are loosers and loosers are users". What this
    	is saying in effect is that while you do have the choice, WE
    	have already determined it is not "PC" to make that choice if
    	it doesn't allign with ours and you will forever be an "outcast"
    	with the rest of (our CORRECT) society.
    
    	G_B

.84 -->
    
>    	he doesn't care what YOUR personal choice is, but rather you
>    	should stop and think about how your peers would view this act
>    	before you do make your choice. What does it matter if any group
>    	thinks that S&M is PC or not? Should I base any of my choices
>    	on what any group thinks is correct or not? 

I don't think Charles was saying that he thinks that you should base your
choices on public opinion - i think he was saying that public opinion exists
and is worthy of discussion.

Secondly, i *shouldn't* matter what some group thinks is correct or not,
but it DOES!!!  Does anyone seriously think that when you choose and activity,
or a lifestyle, that society as a whole does not approve of, that it has
no affect on your personally?  Ha!

The reason it matters, and the reason for discussing it, isn't because
someone is being prevented from making a choice, but because the choosing
will affect his or her life.

Like Charles said, would you want to, say, be roommates with someone you
knew was into S&M?  If you are into S&M and someone doesn't wnt you for a
roommate, or co-worker, because of it, then what's PC and what isn't 
directly affects your life.  And if you don't believe this happens, tell it
to the women I was going to move in with that "found out" about some of my
interests and broke it off.

>    	I really feel today's society, while saying everyone should
>    	be free to make their own choices, is way too busy trying to
>    	limit those choices by group pressure. Take smoking for an

I think everyone agrees that is a good thing.  I think we are discussing
here why that isn't as easy as it sounds.

.85 (herb) -->

>This is what I believe S&M means...

>    The term(s) is pejorative. It is used to refer to sexual practices
>    where one or the other of the two (or more) partners inflicts
>    bodily pain on the other(s).

A PEJORATIVE?????

Anyway, yes, there are very different definitions.  There is some debate,
even among people who practice it, as to what S&M is, what the term means.
But I think your definition is way too simplistic.

Most people I have talked to agree that the heart of S&M is the exchange
of power.  Pain is an expression of that power.  But it doesn't have to
involve pain.  It doesn't *have* to involved bondage or any other activity
classically associated with S&M, although often it does.  Pain doesn't have
to be physical, either.  I have always though a more accurate term than
S&M (sadism and masochism) or, more commonly SM (sadomasochism) is D&S,
dominance and submission, because it is more descriptive of what (many) 
people's motivation behind practicing it is.

>The infliction of this bodily pain *itself* causes arousal or even orgasm.

For some people.  Not for all.  For many people it's the feeling of 
powerfulness/powerlessness that is arousing.  What is arousing about the
pain is that you are being subjected to it.  These two things often blend
together to the point where it's hard to tell what it is you like about it.
But saying it is the pain alone is like saying that the only thing people
enjoy about vanilla sex is the orgasm.  Many people also get pleasure from
vanilla sex from the sharing with the partner, from giving pleasure, from
all sorts of things other than bare physical sensations.  If it was simply
pain then you could get as much pleasure causig it to yourself as doing it
with someone else.

Also, often when people talk about S&M, they aren't just talking about the
pain, they are talking about surrounding activities.  The bondage.  The
clothes.  The roles people play.  S&M *can* be a lifestyle as much as it is
a form of sexual expression.

I hope this helps, at least a little.

D!

re: .84 ANT::BUSHEE "Living on Blues Power"

�    	Anyways, who are you or I to judge anothers action? Last time
�    	I checked, GOD was still alive and well, therefore let's leave
�    	any and all judgements up to him.

	And what about those of us who don't believe in god.  Is this a peer
presure attempt to change our position?

						--D

       
Re: .86    

> Secondly, i *shouldn't* matter what some group thinks is correct or not,
> but it DOES!!!  Does anyone seriously think that when you choose and activity,
> or a lifestyle, that society as a whole does not approve of, that it has
> no affect on your personally?  Ha!

> The reason it matters, and the reason for discussing it, isn't because
> someone is being prevented from making a choice, but because the choosing
> will affect his or her life.

> Like Charles said, would you want to, say, be roommates with someone you
> knew was into S&M?  If you are into S&M and someone doesn't wnt you for a
> roommate, or co-worker, because of it, then what's PC and what isn't 
> directly affects your life.  And if you don't believe this happens, tell it
> to the women I was going to move in with that "found out" about some of my
> interests and broke it off.

D!, I understand what you are saying. But I wonder if, perhaps, in   
the example you gave, your "interests" were perceived by that woman to be 
"morally incorrect" rather than Politically Incorrect.

It's been my experience that people are much more turned off by individuals
whom they consider to be "kinky" (not meant pejoratively, I just can't think 
of a better word that fits in this context  right now) than by those who are 
"merely" PI (or even ultra-Conservative Republican). :-) 


>                   I have always though a more accurate term than
> S&M (sadism and masochism) or, more commonly SM (sadomasochism) is D&S,
> dominance and submission, because it is more descriptive of what (many) 
> people's motivation behind practicing it is.

When my (now) ex-wife and I used to read some of the various alternative 
lifestyle magazines, we used to come across ads which seemed to different-
iate between S/M and B&D. (At least people would list them as separate
rquirements.) 

Is there a difference between S/M, B&D, and what you've described as D&S?

   Alan

    re .88
    
    Try thinking of SM as the "extended instruction set" of the B&D
    world.  Sorry for the analogy- the techy in me creeps  out every
    now and then.
    
    Actually, within the SM community there are a variety of "specialties"
    - usually indicated by the color and site of one's handkerchief.
    B&D and D&S are among the more common preferences.
    
	-mauren
    

    The role of "pain" in S&M seems to be very worrisome and confusing to
    many (including the dictionary compilers).  D! (and Maureen?) have
    tried to clear some of that up, but I wonder if an analogy I thought of
    might not be germane.
    
    
    I have a resident fungus sited in the back of my left thigh that I
    acquired while living in Texas (great place for all kindsa stuff like
    that, or so my quack told me).  It's benign, typically dormant, not
    catching or socially disgusting. 
    
    It's also pretty sensitive to stress, and at those times it flares up,
    causing an odd-looking dimpled area.  And the #$@^$%#$%^ *ITCHES*!!!   
    One of the few bits of relief I get from the itching is to turn the hot
    water on it in the shower.  And I mean *hot*, much hotter than any of
    the rest of my bod could stand.  The effect is amazing, my whole
    nervous system just goes nuts for a second as whatever produces the
    itching gets clobbered by the heat.  It's not an unpleasant "nuts"
    either, quite the opposite if anything.  But to somebody else, I'm sure
    it would look as though I were torturing myself, turning near-scalding
    water on the back of my leg!  So is that "pain" that I experience from
    the water?   It certainly would be if the fungus weren't active!!
    
    I'm guessing that D!'s point about (I don't remember her term...
    "strongly stimulating"?) the system in S&M practice may be, to the
    person involved, not actually "pain" at all, but rather just...
    stimulation, experienced simply and naturally.  No fungus required.
                                                 
    Yes?  No?  Maybe so?
    						=maggie

>D!, I understand what you are saying. But I wonder if, perhaps, in   
>the example you gave, your "interests" were perceived by that woman to be 
>"morally incorrect" rather than Politically Incorrect.

Can you really draw a clean line between the "moral" and the "political"?
I think not.  To so many people, that which they believe politically is
the only "mrally correct" position...and so many make their morals
political by evangelism, etc...  I think seperating them is at best
pointless and at worse, hopeless.

>Is there a difference between S/M, B&D, and what you've described as D&S?

Hee hee.  Ha ha ha.  Funny you should ask.  It's one of those "unanswerable"
questions that tends to show off the division within the group that none of
us like to brag about.  *Big* contraversy here.  there has been a running
(6+ months) debate on alt.sex.bondage about just exactly your question.

To summarize:

My position: S/M and bondage (B&D is not a good term, since to me bondage
is entirely seperate from discipline) are *subsets* of D&S.

Popular position: D&S == S/M, B&D is "light" S/M

Another popular position: bondage is tying people up; S/M is causing people
pain; D&S is one person controlling another - the three are definite,
distinct categories, but are often found together.

Bonnie (I think, I took the quote and forgot the author):
>I'm guessing that D!'s point about (I don't remember her term...
>    "strongly stimulating"?) the system in S&M practice may be, to the
>    person involved, not actually "pain" at all, but rather just...
>    stimulation, experienced simply and naturally.  No fungus required.

>    Yes?  No?  Maybe so?
 
Yes.  No.  And maybe.  

Yes: Which is to say that, to the extent that the
pain is inherently pleasurable to some submissives/msochists, many of them
would agree with you.  Some would say "No way, it's like *real* *pain*,
but I enjoy it."  I would agree with you, the pain that I enjoy *as* *pain*
is only kind-sorta pain.

No: Because a lot of the enjoyment that a lot of subs/masochists derive
from a scene isn't from the pain.  The pain is as painful to them as to
the rest of us, but, as I said before, it turns them on because it's a
giving up of control.  The latter is the *majority* of my own enjoyment.
(I do not general classify myself as a masochist, for this reason.)

As another example of pain-that-isn't, I enjoy stretching (as in, stretch
before you work out to make sure you don't pull a muscle.)  It's
painful, it has to be uncomfortable or you aren't stretching the
muscle.  But it's a *good* kind of pain, because I can feel the muscle
stretching, and that's good, and because I know it's good for my body.
Similarly, when you are really tense, and someone gives you a good firm
backrub, and you say "Oh that hurts"...they say "You want me to lighten
up?"  You say "OH no, that's perfect, it feels great...oh yes, right there
ooOOWW!"  Sound familiar?

D!

    Maggie -
    
    You have a what?  Is that anything like a software resident?
    Good goddess this note is getting personal! :>)
    
    You're partially right.  The pleasure-pain barrier is very different
    with both people and situations.  What may be extremely satisfying
    when you fungus itches can be very unpleasant when it's hibernating.
    This relationship can change quite quickly - even in the midsts
    of a scene.  The dominant partner has to be paying quite close
    attention or you end up with an extermely unpleasant situation.
    Typical encounters increase in intensity as the level of arousal
    increases.
    
    But then again there are a few folks who are just plain into pain
    as pain - not as a part of role, or in response to heightened
    arousal, or anything else.  It doesn't seem like these folks would
    be much fun at all.

    Resident fungus, Maureen.  Or at least that's what my quack told me
    it is; she said I prolly picked it up working in the garden.  I
    can't tell what it is, actually, it's not as though my leg looks
    like a penicillin culture or anything, if it weren't for the
    dimpling and the itching, I'd never know anything were there.  
                          
    (hmmm...prolly not too much like a s/w resident, actually:  it does
    nothing for me and I can't get it to go away by not paying for it
    :-)
    
    						=maggie

    These issues touch at lot of the personal relationships we have with
    each other. The words power and control say it all. Everything from
    our sexual to our business relationships revolve around them. S&M
    just brings into the physical realm what already exists
    psychologically.

    Another techy geek that couldn't resist looking into the dictionary.
    I found in mine bondage = slavery or serfdom. Maybe that's just the
    business deffinition. :*) It doesn't even mention being tied up.

    As far as S&M being accepted in popular culture, it depends. I don't
    have a problem with consenting adults doing what they want, I don't
    like censorship, and yet I find myself disturbed at "violent"
    pictures with women as the subject. I remember the Rolling Stones
    album with the woman who was bruised and chained. It was
    frightening. I don't have a concise sensible opinion on this
    subject, just feelings.

    Would I have someone into S&M as a roommate? I don't know, I suppose
    it would depend on the person. These are hard questions. If I think
    "a little" is fine does that mean I have to accept "a lot" as being
    fine also? liesl

    re:.84
    
    I'm not sure your analogy to smokers vs. non-smokers is appropriate.
    As a basically hetero "vanilla sex" kinda guy, I have no problem
    with what sexual activities other people want to engage in, because
    *it doesn't affect me*. When someone else smokes, though, it *can*
    affect me via ambient smoke, etc.
    
    However, your description of the pressure put on non-smokers by
    making smoking appear to by Politically Incorrect, is certainly
    apropos.
    
    --- jerry

On the topic of what S&M is - a very good paper was written on this by 
Weinberg, Williams and Moser, entitled "The Social Contituents of
Sadomasochism", appearing in the April 1984 issue of "Social Problems".
(Despite the name of the journal, the authors did not seem to hold the
view that SM was a social problem.)

Some excerpts, taken without permission...
Abstract:
"Traditional conceptions of sadomasochism are misleading.  This is because 
they are not based on close examination of what the majority of SM 
participants actually do and how they interpret their own behaviors.
Over a period of eight years, we interviewed a variety of SM participants
and observed their behavior in many different settings.  We found that 
sadomasochism was contituted by five social features: dominance and
submission, role playing, consensuality, a sexual context, and mutual
definition.  These feature formed the bais for the interpretation of
behaviors and experiences as SM by participants.  This focus permits a
sociological model of the phenomena which avoids the limitations of more
traditional conceptions."

"Five features were involved in participants' use of the category of
sadomasochism:

1) Dominance and submission - dominance is an appearance of rule over one
     partner by another.  The dominant partner is variously called sadist,
     dominant, dominator, dominatrix, top, master, mistress of just 'S'.
     The counterpart of domiance is submission - an appearance of obedience to
     a partner.  The submissive partner is variously called maochist,
     submissive, bottom, slave, or just "M".

2) Role playing - an exaggeration of those sets of expectations that
     surround the particular dominant and submissive roles chosen, for
     example, master and slave.

3) Consensuality - a voluntary agreement to enter into dominant/submissive
     "play" and to honor certain "limits".

4) A sexual context - the presumption that the activities have a sexual
      meaning.

5) Mutual definition - an assumtion of a shared understanding by the 
      participants that their activities are SM.

The authors go on to define, describe and discuss these five features
in further detail...

Conclusion
"We began this paper by describig how sadomasochism has traditionally been
conceptualized.  After our fieldwork, however, it was apparant that the
traditional model was misleading.  Basically, it is overgeneralized, 
essentialistic, and atomistic.

Overgeneralization: the traditional model generalizes to the whole of
sadomasochims the activties and experiences of those person most likely
to come to the attention of clinicians.
   For example, there are persons who engage in non-consensual sexual 
violence such as rape or lust murders.  They are, however, a small and
unrepreesentative group among those to whom the label "sadomasochism"
is applied.  Moreover, it is unliekly that hey would apply this label
to their own activities. This is supplied by professionals and the public
in an efort to make sense of problematic behavior.  The SM participants
we observed, who also are similarly labelled, were quite different, and 
unlike the above persons, they categorized their own sexual interests as
"sadomasochistic".  There were also some participants engaging in "heavy
SM" who might fit the traditional conceptions.  But for most participants,
SM was simply a form of sexual enhancement which they voluntarily and
mutually chose to explore.

Essentialism: This feature of the traditional model posits the existence of
a kind of person known as the sadomasochist; thus "doing" is transformed
into "being" (Plummer, 1981).  We argue that this belief - again reflecting
a label imposed on the setting of SM from the outside - is inaccurate,
because no such personality type has been found.  We believe it is more
accurate to use the term sadomasochism to describe an activity, and thus
focus more on roles than on persons.  In addition, by isolating and
defining socialk feature that determine how persons come to interpret
their own behavior as SM, we have eliminated the essentialist question
of whether people or behaviors are, in and of themselves, 'really'
sadomasochistic.

Atomism: The traditional model ignores the SM subculture.  This subculture
provides a preexisting set of meanings which persons can draw upon
to define and elaborate their sexual activities.  The traditional model
emphasizes individual motives, thereby ignoring these shared attributes..."

>    Isn't "political correctness" just peer pressure toward conformity
>    writ large?

	Well put, Eagle!

    Sharon

    <--(.101) 
    
    I would beware of taking the DSM too seriously, Herb:  whether or not
    some behavior gets labelled a "disorder" depends a great deal on when
    and where the evaluation is being done, and on the sex, age, economic
    status, education, and social standing of the person whose behavior is
    being evaluated.  It's nowhere near as cut-and-dried as figuring out
    whether somebody has a broken leg.
    
    						=maggie

Herb,

As Maggie said, don't take those references too seriously as "fact".  The
article I typed in references from a couple replies ago ("The Social
Constituents of Sadomasochism") presents a number of good arguments why
the classic psychoanalytic models of sadists and masochists are flawed.
And just remember

1) the models are based on people who seek therapy, not "average" folks

2) the defintions in those books are circular (I have seen them.)  They
say sadomasochism is a disorder because it's compulsive, etc.  But they
define sadomasochists as those who *need* pain in sex, etc... This is
consistent within the framework of psychoanalysis, but often lay-people try
to apply conclusions drawn by psychoanalysists about "sadomasochists" 
to people who call *themselves* sadomasochists, but do not fit the
defn used in drawing those conclusions.  classic fallacy...

3) Although people in psychology would like to believe that psychoanalytic
theory is a "science", it isn't - and politics and other unrelated issues
have a lot more to do with definitions of "disorders" than they should.
Remember, it was relatively recently that "homosexuality" was taken of the
official lists as a "disorder" - and it wasn't that the science changed
dramatically, or new evidence was found, it was mostly that it became
no longer politically correct to treat homosexuals as sick people.

D!

    hmmmm...I would be willing to bet a very fine dinner for all of us
    involved in this discussion that most clinicians today would withhold
    judgement except in cases where the practice is extreme enough to
    result in a reduction in the person's ability to copy with everyday
    life (as, for instance, if physical disability were a likely result),
    or of course in cases where the person experienced conflict over the
    behavior.
     
    It's like booze:  there's nothing psychologically suspect about
    drinking or even occasionally getting drunk, but when alcohol
    consumption starts causing changes in other parts of the person's life,
    *then*...and only then...there is a clinical problem.
    
    						=maggie

    re: "healthy"
    
    That sounds right on the money to me, Maggie.  Come to think
    of it, some of those we consider paragons of health routinely
    inflict tremendous pain on themselves and sometimes others.
    We call these people atheletes.
    
    Steve

>    Furthermore, I suspect that virtually all health professionals would
>    reject out of hand the notion that one can "in good health" choose to
>    participate in such behavior. [S&M]

You suspect incorrectly.  

No, I can't list therapists names off hand, but I have talked to some, and
talked to many people who have been to them.  Also read journal articles
by "professionals" and "researchers".

And any *good* health professional doesn't "reject out of hand" the possible
healithiness of someone, based only on the tidbit of information of one type
of sexual interaction they enjoy.

Most (read: all) of the "Health professionals" i have talked to/been with
don't make any such judgemental statements as whether a person is healthy or
unhealthy. In fact, if you read psychological journals, you'll see that the
big problem with psychology is no one ever comes to firm conclusions!!

Maggie's right.

D!

> Characterizing 'such behavior' as referring to [S&M] is incorrect. 

> 'such behavior' instead refers to "that behavior that *intentionally and
> consciously* results in the infliction of physical or psychic pain on
> oneself or another." 

Herb, that's a reasonable definition of S&M. Especially if you add something
about consent. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree.
The previous replies still apply, even with your changed wording.

Until a recent edition, DSM considered Homosexuality a disorder as well.
(Rathole alert - take that discussion to another note, please.)

	-- Charles

    But Herb, see Steve's note. Professional athletes intentionally
    AND consciously choose to inflict pain on themselves and others
    all the time. AND get paid for it by people who love to watch. 
    
    (Hiya Herb, How ya doin'?  C class...remember? Macadam, etc.?)
    
    Dawn (--DE)
    

    This came around one of my odd mailing lists the other day. It strikes
    me that this is an example of being PC while doing S&M.
    
    	Jon
    
    
From:	ERIS::CALLAS "Mmmm, yes.  03-Nov-1989 1107" 3 November '89 11:22 am
To:	FOLKSTAR::
Subj:	Raised Eyebrow Department

Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 16:02:25 -0700
From: Keith Bostic <bostic%[email protected]>
Subject: The new morality

Article 2050 (120 more) in alt.sex.bondage:

...

> Can anyone suggest a good source for non-leather restraints, collars,
> etc?  I am a nonleather-wearing vegetarian who is finding cruelty-free
> tools of the trade a bit difficult to acquire...

Re: .112

Pretty close. The gratification is not necessarily sexual.

	-- Charles

    <--(.112)
    
�    it seems as though a number of you are defending such activity as both
�    politically correct and healthy. Is that in fact roughly correct?
    
    Healthy, yes.  And I think Steve Mallett's example was *very* telling.
    
    PC, no (unless I've missed something).  In fact, Charles posted some
    evidence that at least in one segment of society, it's completely
    intolerable, let alone politically incorrect.
    
    						=maggie
                           

Herb,

I don't understand why you objected to my paraphrasing your bit about
"intentionally and conciously resulting in infliction of psychic or
physical pain" as S&M.  For the purpose of your argument, what's the
difference?  (In reality S&M is muchmore than that, but I suspect the
point you are trying to demonstrate is "unhealthy" is the "psychic or
physical pain" part of S&M.)

>    Apart from the fact that the sentence is very clumsy, it seems as
>    though a number of you are defending such activity as both politically
>    correct and healthy.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it is "politically correct" or
even that it should be.  In fact, most people have said that "politically
correct" should be irrelevent to what two people choose to do with their
sex lives.  Also it isn't "healthy" or "unhealthy".  It just *is*.  It's
how you deal with it that decides whether it is healthy or unhealthy.

S&M can be unhealthy. So can eating peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  If you eat
eat P&J S's all the time, to the point of exlcusion of other foods that
are necessary nutritionally, if eating those sandwiches interfere's with
your life and makes you unhappy, if you eat so many of them that you get
fat, then yeah, they are unhealthy.  If you eat them in moderation, and
be sure to get plenty of other kinds of nutrition, and don't spend every
penny you make on peanut butter, then it's not a problem.  Same with S&M -
If it becomes a compulsion/obsession, where you can't enjoy life without
it, if it affects your daily life and makes you unhappy, if you feel
guilty, then it's unhealthy.  Otherwise, it's not a problem.  

I propose that S&M is not "healthy" (like eating bran and brocoli), nor is
it "unhealthy" (like eating fried pork rinds), but it just *is*, and how 
healthy it is depends on how you deal with it (like the aforementioned
peanut butter and jelly.)

So I guess I would have to say "no" that is not a correct as what we are trying
to say.

D!

    re: "healthy" (again)
    
    Since I made an observation earlier about the voluntary infliction
    of physical pain, I thought I might offer one that speaks to the
    mental/emotional side.  We regularly inflict mental and emotional
    pain upon ourselves and others and find it entirely praiseworthy.
    Such endeavors are called political elections.
    
    � . . .it seems as though a number of you are defending such 
    � activity as both politically correct and healthy.  Is that in 
    � fact roughly correct?
    
    Speaking only personally, I'd answer, "Roughly, yes."  The "rough"
    part has to do with a couple things.
    
    First, as to whether it's "healthy", I'd judge that not by the
    acts themselves, but how the participants relate to them.  I'd 
    roughly say that if one or more people involved was obssesive/com-
    pulsive about the behavior, it would be "unhealthy".  I'd say the
    same about just about any endeavor I can think of, including "straight"
    sex.  When an individual becomes obsessive/compulsive about any 
    behavior to the point that their life becomes unmanageable�, I'd say
    that it's unhealthy.  
    
    Second, I don't really know what to say about political "correctness"
    other than to echo some of what others have already said.  I think
    freedom of choice is a good thing; I think that for any group of
    people to exert pressure on any other people who are consensually 
    seeking mutual pleasure is an undesirable political act.  
    
    I suspect that the difficulty with PCness that some people have 
    may stem from an inability to separate a sexual *role* from the 
    political arena.  "How," they ask, "can one be a 'slave' in a sexual 
    partnership and still be a political equal?"  I believe the answer, 
    is that for those practicing healthy alternative sex (and "straight", 
    for that matter), the roles played in the bedroom (or dungeon or 
    wherever) are just that.  The personna I adopt in mutual pleasure
    sharing are not my entire being.  I don't view all individuals on
    the street as my "slave" or "mistress" and what goes on in my 
    bedroom has no bearing on whether I think, for example, women 
    should have the right to abortion or whether people of color should
    be able to vote.
    
    Truth be told, I've occasionally wondered if those practicing healthy
    alternative sex aren't prone to be more "politically correct" than
    others walking more familiar paths.  My thinking here is that, as 
    D! and others have indicated, SM (or BD or PDQ or whatevah) relation-
    ship seems to require a high degree of communication and trust.  To
    make it work, all parties need to be very aware of the other(s) and
    very willing to play the roles in such a way that the enjoyment is
    indeed mutual.  It seems to me that such willingness to consider
    the needs and desires describes an interpersonal political viewpoint
    that is extremely equal.  The roles played may be unequal in terms
    of apparent power (within the role play), but the willingness to play
    those roles for the benefit of the other and abide by the mutually
    agreed upon rules speaks of an attitude of equality.
                                                        
    Another way of saying the same thing is that we might as easily ask
    "Is the well-known (straight) 'wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am' sex role
    politcally correct?"
    
    Steve
    
    � Yes, that's a nod to all you 12-steppers. . .

    re: .118 (Herb)
    
    � If that remark is somehow relevant to this discussion, then this
    � discussion is not about S&M but rather about ONANISM. And that is a
    � first rate example of intellectual onanism.

    Would you care to try that one again, Herb?  I understand the
    words, but I'm kind of at a loss to understand intent of your
    message.  Is your only intent here to be insulting?
    
    Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I might have been.  My point was that
    people periodically enter into the process of political debate, the
    point of which is to inflict mental or emotional harm on the other
    candidate.  We generally don't think of this activity as any more 
    unhealthy than things like sporting events, the participation in 
    which involves lots of voluntary physical pain.
    
    Steve
                                              

    <--(.121)
    
    I first put in a short response as a mod, then re-read your note, Herb,
    and, after woffling back and forth several times, deleted it.  I have
    had hell's own hard time figuring out how to write this response.
    
    Your sincere distress at all this is plain, Herb, and hard to respond
    to either as a mod or an individual because while I can at least partly
    appreciate the depth of your revulsion, I find myself unable to share
    it.
    
    You clearly believe that there are things that are absolutely wrong for
    anyone to do, and I can agree with that.  I imagine, in fact, that all
    of us in here agree with that.  Where we differ is in what things fall
    into this category.
    
    When I examine my own beliefs, I conclude that number one on my hit
    list is "abusing the helpless".  To me, that's wrong.  Always wrong, no
    exceptions.  Because the victim is, ipso facto, not a free participant
    in the decision.
    
    Beyond that?  It's hard to say.  Maybe there is nothing else, maybe
    everything else is either that or it's okay.  I don't know.
    
    You consider Steve's point about athletics to be somehow fraudulent,
    but I can't determine why.  The athlete causes herself pain in aid of
    physical fitness; the "bottom" causes herself pain in aid of sexual
    pleasure.  Where's the difference, to you?  They look pretty similar to
    me, so I wonder what I'm missing.
    
    						=maggie

    My position, as noter and co-moderator, and be aware I only speak 
    for myself, is this:
    
    People in this society have freedoms that are given by this nation
    (or the nation of their choice) to do many things.  One of these
    freedoms is that of discussion and thought.  Another freedom is
    that of sexuality.  It became obvious shortly after the discussion
    of "S&M being PC" began that there were some people interested in
    this discussion, and in voicing their opinions (as evinced by the
    now 120-some-odd responses to the basenote).  The co-moderators
    of this file have the difficult task of ensuring that discussions
    in this notesfile do not cross over the boundaries of graphic
    description, do not go against any of the womannotes guidelines
    (1.*), and do not violate the new information-circulating guidelines
    and their ramifications (as seen in the new P&P section on sharing
    and posting e-mail and so forth), as well as the other Digital
    guidelines for computer use.  
        
    Please be aware that by remaining quiet I neither condone nor condemn
    such practices by my silence.  Those who choose to practice them with
    others who are willing to share in that activity are doing so with open
    eyes.  It is my place in this discussion (and others) as a co-moderator
    to allow all to voice their opinion equally with other noters, and for
    all to have their differences *valued*, and not negated.  Alternative
    opinions are welcome, but I am fairly sure that, as with many topics,
    there is no cut-and-dried "right" and "wrong" in this topic, and there
    will be few people willing to accept a global "right" and "wrong".
    There is only people's opinions and choices, and their discussion of
    same, within the given guidelines this file must always follow. 
    
    I, too, have a problem with the difference of pain-for-an-S&M 
    practitioner and pain_for_an_athlete.  Why do so many people not
    only accept, but even pay to see two grown men punch one another 
    until one of them passes out?  Perhaps you differentiate that the
    athlete knows that they will get pain, and takes it as PAIN, whereas
    the S&M practitioner knows that they will get pain, and somehow
    translates it into pleasure.  Perhaps that is the dichotomy that
    is difficult to comprehend.  
    
    -Jody
    

As an aside, it not all at clear to me that athletics involves pain
per se.  In the sports I do (running, swimming, biking, hiking,
frisbee, jugging, etc), pain is a sign from your body that you are
pushing too hard and need to back off a bit.  In my view, pain is a
sign and not a natural healthy condition for the body to be in.  I
guess maybe that why I am not a boxing or football fan!

However, physical pain can not always be avoided and I think it
interesting to look at it when it does appear and to see how much is
created by the mind and how much is a primary cause in the body.

john

(I know that you have withdrawn from this conversation, Herb.  I am not
sure why, but I am responding to your note anyway.  Maybe someone else
will care to pick up the ball you dropped and explain your position to
me.)
    
>    I have absolutely no difficultly whatsoever stating very clearly that
>    "hurting somebody specifically for the sexual pleasure of the hurt is
>    not good". It is bad if I do it, it is bad if somebody else does it".

I read the rest of this note thinking "Good. Some contraversy.  I know
some people feel this way, I am glad someone had the guts to say it.
Now we can *discuss* it."  But the more I read, the more dissappointed
I was - you left nothing to discuss.  You stated time and time again that
you disapproved, that you thought it was "bad", but never *why*?  

Perhaps the defintion of closed-mindedness is closing a discussion with a
value-judgement and the implication that "the reasons are intuitively
obvious, and are left as an excercise to the reader."  There's not a
whole lot your partner in debate can do to argue with this standpoint, and
there's *no* way for *you* to learn their viewpoint!

>    And it has *NOTHING* to do with athletics.

I'll second and third some other people in saying I don't understand what
was so inappropriate about Steve Mallett's athletic analogy.  Sounded
good to me...

>    We may have different threshholds of pain. But somewhere along the
>    chain from (say)
>    kissing and hugging
>    to tongue nibbling and breath taking hugging
>    to tongue biting and choking
>    to cutting out the tongue & ?
>    to murder

Hmmm... this is the closest I found in your message about a "reason" for
your feelings.  And I am still somewhat lost.  All I can say is that your
continuum is *not*.  You seem to think this is a line with no distinguishing
features except some arbitrarily chosen "BADNESS" marker.  But there *is*
a distinguishing feature, many in fact.  One is the oft-mentioned consensuality.
Another is eroticism (at some point it ceases to be erotic to the people
involved.)  Another is damage to the body.  Another is *permanant* damage
to the body.  Etc...

I think what you were trying to do here is to demonstrate since murder is
"generally accepted" as "bad", and since murder falls on the extreme end
of S&M, that S&M is "bad".  The basic premise that muder is on the S&M
continuum (which I don't think is really a continuum, as previously
discussed) I think is incorrect.  Secondly, even if it was correct, I don't
see the leap of logic to get to the conclusion.

But then, since you never stated explicitly what your argument was, I can't
very well challenge it, can I?

>    I think there may be a lot of marginally healthly people reading this
>    discussion and -correctly or incorrectly -interpreting one of the

Things seem to get a little confused here.  I think there is a big difference
between discussing whether something is "healthy" and whether something is
"good".  (And a diff between those and discussing whether something is "PC",
which although the original topic, never really got discussed.)

>    I am very concerned that the moderators are not taking a position on
>    this. I am very concerned there are many people who are willing to let
>    this message go forth. I am very concerned that nobody else has stood
>    up and said STOP.

why should they take a stand?  Perhaps they don't have opinions on the
"goodness" or "badness" of some activities, or perhaps they do and are
not comfortable discussing it here, for whatever reason.  I have seem *many*
issues the mods haven't expressed personal opinion on, and I don't see 
why they should have to.

Also, as far as I know, they aren't here to stop discussion based on whether
the topic is about a "bad" or "good" activity, but to make sure nothing
said violates DEC regulations or the =wn= charter.

Finally, you said that anyone questioning your defintion of "bad" would
just be clouding the issue.  I disagree, and I *do* question your defintion
When you say "S&M is *bad*" does that mean you think it should be illegal?
Does it mean simply that those people practicing it are "bad people" and
therefore not worthy of your attention?  Does it mean they will go to "hell"
or be reincarnated as a slug?  Does it mean...well, what does it mean?

I am always confused when people say "I think this is bad."  My reaction is
"Well, okay, that's your position.  Now what?  What would you propose
needs to be done?"  "Bad" is such a broad, indecisive, meaningless word...

(I myself am skeptical about the existence of "badness" and "goodness" in
some absolute ethic, but that is a metaphysical discussion for another day.)

D!

    re .127
    
    D!,
    
    I think that part of the "problem" people have with S&M is that there
    is pain involved.  For the most part people are taught that pain is
    something to be avoided like the plague.  Pain is bad.  Pain is a sign
    that all is not well, as in a headache.  Pain is not pleasure. 
    
    What I "read between the lines" in Herb's note and which you may have
    read also, is that if one is taught that pain is something to be
    avoided (think of the market for pain-killers, or drugs to kiss away
    the pain), that if it hurts then something's wrong, when one runs into
    another who wants to experince pain then "something must be wrong with
    that person."  After all, "no normal person wants to experience pain." 
    
    _karen

What about the phrase "No pain - no gain? While it is often used in jest, it
is also often used very seriously. "You have to suffer to get what you want."
It turns out that this particular view is not very relevant to SM, but it shows
that pain is not universally to be avoided in society. Also phrases like
"It hurts me more than it hurts you." and "This is for your own good." show that
we don't universally avoid inflicting deliberate pain on others.

Herb, your claim that we don't need to discuss the meaning of "bad" strikes
to the heart of the matter. We do, since it is clear that your "bad" and mine
are worlds apart. I'm glad you've chosen to add to the discussion, because I
think your voice is representative of a large part of our society. Please don't
leave.

	-- Charles

RE:             <<< Note 820.129 by OXNARD::HAYNES "Charles Haynes" >>>

>What about the phrase "No pain - no gain? While it is often used in jest, it

Well, I have heard this in athletic circles and it is currently
thought to be a harmful way to approach your body and athletics.

I think, "no hard work - no gain" or "no discipline - no gain" are
much more appropriate.

Of course, what this has to do with S&M I'll never know! ;-)

john

           <<< Note 820.128 by PACKER::WHARTON "Sapodilla gal..." >>>
>    I think that part of the "problem" people have with S&M is that there
>    is pain involved.  For the most part people are taught that pain is
>    something to be avoided like the plague.  Pain is bad.  Pain is a sign
>    that all is not well, as in a headache.  Pain is not pleasure. 

Yeah, I will never understand why pain has this almost mystic importance
in our society.  Why is it such a big deal, pain?  Look folks, pain is just
a nervous system repsonse to warn the brain that possible damage is 
occuring.  The correct response to pain is to make sure that there *isn't*
damage happening, and then go on with things.  Do you take aspirin?  Then
that is what you are doing - you listen to the pain, you make sure everything 
is okay, then you get rid of the pain.  Pain is nothing more than the
release of certain hormones into the spinal column!  Big deal!  I don't
understand why *enjoying* the release of those hormones is so bad.  S&M
doesn't mean "ignoring your body's messages" and more than taking aspirin
does.  In fact, people who play with pain have to be *extra* careful to
listen to what their body says, and evaluate it carefully.

I am still at a loss for why Herb thinks that pain is not only a negative
thing but is MORALLY WRONG.  Pleasure is okay...but encouraging the 
release of certain hormones is BAD, WRONG, and UNETHICAL.

As for the "mental healthiness" of it, I read a wonderful quote the other
day which I meant to bring in, but forgot, so here's the jist of it.
"Mental health is a measure of felixibility, not a comparison to some
'norm'.  Someone is mentally healthy if they can adapt to their environment,
respond to differing stimuli...Insanity is when an behavior becomes
obsessive, inflexible and insatiable, fixed in a pattern..."  (I'll
get the actual quote in here soon.)

The problem with defining sadomasochism as unhealthy is that it
looks at just one aspect of that person, and compares it to a "norm".
But that implies that there is someone strict definition of "sanity"
and every deviation from that isunhealthy.  But there is no such standard
against which to compare behaviors.  To determine whether a particular
person is doing something unhealthy, you have to take into account
their whole person - if they are happy, if the are productive members 
of society, if they aren't dangerous, neurotic, schizophrenic or psychotic
(anyone who is happy and comfortable with themselves is clearly not
neurotic, schizophrenia is characterised by behavior patterns that are
not inherently related to S&M, and psychosis is characterized by an
alternate view of reality) who are we to call it unhealthy?

BTW, if we really are going to discuss the medical world's view of SM
let us at least bag such words layman's terms as "unhealthy".  Sadomasochism, 
along with other sorts of deviant sexual behavior such as voyeurism, 
exhibitionism, pedophilia, gerontophilia, fetishes, and until recently, 
homosexuality, is classified as a "paraphilia".  Paraphilias are generally 
characterized by *compulsive* behavior, and inability to function sexually
in more "normal" circumstances, and a general unhappiness about their
sexual dependencies.  None of which describes most of the sadomasochists 
*I* know.  In fact, indoing the section on "paraphilias" in my sex ed
class, the teacher kept listing S&M as an "exception".  He would say things
like "People with paraphilial tendencies are asocial, have a very difficult
time relating to people of the opposite sex, generally fail at all the
relationships they try...except for sadomasochists who don't seem to follow
this model."

D!

re .131
    
>Yeah, I will never understand why pain has this almost mystic importance
>in our society.  Why is it such a big deal, pain?  Look folks, pain is just
>a nervous system repsonse to warn the brain that possible damage is 
>occuring.  
    
    D!,
    
    I think that you've hit on the "badness" of pain. If pain is a warning
    that possible damage may be occuring, then pain is a sort of red flag. 
    If damage is something to be avoided and pain is the red flag, pain by
    being associated to damage becomes negative.  Call it guilty by
    association. :-) 
    
    _karen

    RE: .131 - Great stuff about flexibility and adaptation!
    
    RE: athletics, pain, etc.
    
    Putting aside the case of an individual training herself for whatever
    (competition, fitness, etc.). What I consider sadistic, all-out,
    hurting someone else stuff is the football player who specifically sets
    out to physically harm another player. Their only goal is to put that
    guy out of the game (maybe forever). They have no thought of any
    possible good coming to the opponent.
    
    Now, in S&M, (as I understand it) played "by the rules" (and in
    football, it's legal if the ref doesn't see it - here, the participants
    must "referee" themselves)...so in S&M played by the rules, what
    happens to someone is "perpetrated" in the interest (partially, anyway)
    of their sexual pleasure. And supposedly, both participants get
    something out of it. 
    
    Physical pain in each case, perhaps, but the motivation and the
    outcomes are very different. 
    
    S&M not played by the rules? Could be a dangerous game, I think. 
    From a political standpoint, I agree with the person who said it seems
    pretty PC to be considering the other's feelings all the time. *My*
    politics are (is??) very much on the side of not prescribing gender
    and/or sexual roles. The problem here is being able to tell when
    someone is really "hurt" - so long as 2 people agree, everything's
    fine; but what if someone crosses a line? 
    
    It can't then be worked out by the participants if a loss of trust has
    occurred, and how does the supporting community then handle it? 
    
    Can I say it's PC if played by the rules, when the rules are so
    nebulous? WE live in a society in which the definition of "power" used
    to be pretty well defined. Men had the political type. Men had the
    physical type. Men had the sexual type. Men had the business type.
    Times have changed  (well, some) and power of various kinds has been
    re-defined, and is sliding and shifting all over the place. Maybe
    that's why discussions like this cause so much discomfort. What's
    power? Who has it? How do you define a situation in which the person
    you *think* has it doesn't really? How do you know? How do you judge?
    
    Certainly makes sitting in judgement difficult, don't it?
    
    --DE
    

Re: "no pain no gain"

The point was not that this was truly a good way to train, simply that the
existence of the phrase, and the almost universal recognition of it, shows that
the idea it expresses is a pervasive *concept* in our society.

Re: .131 by D!

Great note!

I'd like to emphasize a couple of points D! made.

> Paraphilias are generally  characterized by *compulsive* behavior, 
> and inability to function sexually in more "normal" circumstances, 
> and a general unhappiness about their sexual dependencies.  None of
> which describes most of the sadomasochists *I* know.

Right! Right! Right!

Further, I believe SM is a continuum. This is going to be tricky, trying
to describe some SMish things that are "accepted" and "the norm",
others that are "naughty", then things that are "kinky", then some
that are "wierd", others that are "right out", and finally those that are
"bad". How to do this without "getting into the mechanics"? I give up - let it
suffice to say that there ARE such things and I think it would easy to find
examples MANY couples are into what I would call "light bondage" to add 
"spice" to their sex lives. This is part of the SM continuum. I belive it
draws some of its appeal from the very "badness" of it. There are aspects of
dominance and control in most people's normal sex play. At some point people
start "drawing the line" and calling SMish things "bad". I draw that line at
consent. Why do others draw it elswhere?

However the most important point in that quote is most practitioners of SM
(wherever they are in the continuum) are not exclusively or necessarily even
primarily into SM. Most of the SMers *I* know lead perfectly normal sex
lives... most of the time. :-)

	-- Charles

    I've though of another anlogy, I saw a documentary on ballet dancers
    last year. They ROUTINELY abuse their bodies to satisfy the patrons
    of the "arts". Many of them have actually deformed their legs and
    knee surgery is as common as in football. They do this willingly and
    often ignore the doctors who advise them to stop.

    I think of doctors during their residence year when they often go
    days without enough sleep and work under extreme stress.

    In some ways our society supports "suffering" as noble. Don't most
    christian religions give it high praise? liesl

    liesl,
    
    during the medieval period it was considered a sign of great faith
    and much to be admired if a person flagellated themself or other
    wise abused their physical body as a sign of their devotion to
    God/Christ.
    
    Bonnie

    Re the last couple: True, but one wasn't supposed to _enjoy_ it. That
    seems to be the big sticking point re S&M; it doesn't appear that
    they're undergoing pain for the sake of some "larger goal" (the success
    of the team, the beauty of the dance, etc.), but for personal pleasure.
    And hasn't it been a Judeo-Christian/Puritan/Victorian
    /heaven-knows-what-else belief that personal pleasure is way, way down
    on the list of important things in life? 
    
    -b

Various thoughts inspired by other various thoughts:

In the Orestia, in one translation, there's a wonderful quote about how painful
knowledge is, and how it comes drop by drop. Unfortunately, I don't have this
translation. But thinking about Greek tragedies, pain and gain have been around
for a long time.

When I was young, I was taught 'hurting' others was a bad thing. And I didn't
enjoy being 'hurt' either. Those are strong lessons, and I still believe them.
Sure, I'm a sh*t sometimes, but I feel awful afterwards, and try to learn from
it. And I'm _sure_ that those reactions are some of what comes up for me in the
context of discussing S&M. Intellectually, I understand the consensual
difference. But it's not in my neurons.
	Mez

Aha! I get it.  It isn't *pain* that is bad, it's is enjoying pain.  So it
is really the *pleasure* that is BAD.  Well, I still don't understand the
viewpoint, but at least that puts it in some perspective.  Personally, I am
a diehard hedonist (Which is to say I consider myself mostly [bout 90%]
a hedonistic utilitarian as the root of my ethical system.)  I personally
can't comprehend how an act that increases a few people's pleasure and
decreases no one's pleasure can be "bad".  

What is interesting is when we were talking about Act Utilitarianism in
my Ethics course, most people identified themselves as Utilitarians
when they learned the definition, but when you looked deeper at their 
reactions you would see that they didn't *really* believe it - some people
thought things were wrong even though they did "The greatest good for
the greatest number."  Me too, sometimes, which is why I am only 90%
Hedonistic Utilitarian.

Thanks for the historical perspective...here's a little more on that topic
from one of my studies I read...

"Sadomasochism (SM), the dilerbate use of physical and/or psychological 
"pain" to produce sexual arousal, puzzles the publoc and professionals
alike.  Most people relate sex to feelings of love, tendereness and affection,
not the hate and callousness that SM implies.  SM's emphasis on pain and
humiliation leads many people to regard SM participants as 'perverted' and
'sick'. The public's conception of SM is explempified in an artile in 
_Time) (1981:74) which concluded, 'While that kinnd of behavior [cruelty
involved with sex] may be rare, it is a sobering reminder that SM is no 
sport, but a driven activity fueled by rage.'
    "Sexual stimulation through the use of physical or mental pain has not
always been so negatively percieved.  Such behavior is seen throughout
history, dating back at least to ancient Egypt...Generally it has been
viewed positively.  In early writings, painful stimuli were seen as
acceptable additions ot a person's sexual repertoire (_the_Koka_Shasta,
The_Perfumed_Garden, _The_Kama_Sutra) Ford and Beach (1951) also showed
the acceptance of thse techniques in many preliterate societies.
     "In Western societies, the use of pain for sexual arousal was not
given special attention until the nineteenth century when such practices
were named and classified by the German physician Richard von Krafft-Ebing.
Krafft-Ebing coined the terms 'sadism' and 'masochism' in his _Psycho-
pathia_Sexualis_.  The word 'sadism' was dervied from thework of the
French writer Marquis de Sade, and 'masochism' from the Austrian novelist
Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, noth of whom worte about the role of pain in their
own sexual practices and fantasies.
    "Prior to Krafft-Ebging, sadomasochistic activity was seen as a medical
curiosity by physicians, but one which did not require their attention.
As a results of Krafft-Ebings incluence, the categoryies 'sadism' and
'masochism' became available as diagnoses of sexual pathology.  Other
nineteenth-century sexologists also contributed to the development of
this new classification.  Sadism and masochism were first linked in
1895 by von Schrenk-Notzing in the term 'algolagnia', which refers to
the connection between sexual excitement and pain....
     "In their review of sexual attitudes throughout history, Bullough
and Bullough (1977:210) conclude, "Sadomasochism is a good example of the way 
a pathological condition is established by the medical community, for
until it became a diagnosis it recieved little attention and was not
even classified as a sin'.  Moreover, the 'sadomasochist' was only one of
a number of sexual categories that were invented beginning in the
nineteenth century (others were "paedophilia", "transexual", "fetishist",
and "homosexual".)  To recognize the historical roots of this classication
is to understand that the "sadomasochist" is a socially constructed
category..."

etc, ad nauseum... :-)

D!

"Pain can act as a sexual stimulus.  Kinsey, et al (1953) noted that
scratching and biting are often ingredients of precoital play in conventional
sex, and that the physiological response to pain is similar to that of
orgasm.  Ellis (1936) notes that pain and sexual excitement often occur
in animal courtship. Indeed, some animals (such as minks, ferrets, sables,
and skunks) need to engage in combat in order to perform coitus.  Thus
a phylogenic basis for these activities among humans has been hypothesized.
Pain also provides a general psycho-physiological arousal - anticipation,
expectancy, excitement (Levitt, 1971) - which can amplify sexual feelings
(Tomkins, 1962) or be labeled as sexual by those experiencing the pain
(Schachter, 1964; Walster and Walster, 1978.)"

Also, for those who agree with the quote "rare" you might be surprised to
know that, for instance, alt.sex.bondage, the usenet group devoted to
such things, is in the top 10 of all newsgroups for number of subscribers.

D!

>in animal courtship. Indeed, some animals (such as minks, ferrets, sables,
>and skunks) need to engage in combat in order to perform coitus.  Thus

Both genders? 
	Mez

>>in animal courtship. Indeed, some animals (such as minks, ferrets, sables,
>>and skunks) need to engage in combat in order to perform coitus.  Thus

>Both genders? 

Presumably "combat" implies both of them are fighting, not one.  I would
assume from the many National Geographic Specials I have watched on
other species, that the male initiates sexual contact, and the female
resists until she is subdued.  Who started the "combat" per se...well,
I'll leave *that* heated argument to someone else.  :-)

D!

Oh; I didn't even get _that_ much from the quote (that it had to be combat from
the very same animals who were about to perform coitus). For some reason, the
National Geographic Specials that spring to my mind are the ones where furry,
hoved, antlered critters duke it out, and the winner takes the little lady. I
can't recall ones where the soon-to-be-lovers fought first...
	Mez

    <<< Note 820.144 by VMSSG::NICHOLS "Herb -CSSE support for VMS at ZK" >>>

Yes, this is more or less the definition I have read in similar journals
and such.  It's close, but not identical, to the definitions I would use.
Did the book include a section on *why* the traits described are diagnosed
as disorders, and if so, could you include that as well?

Just a few things to point out...
>    or otherwise made to suffer. The person has acted on these urges, or is
>    markedly distressed by them.

>    Some people with this disorder are bothered by their masochistic fantasies,
>    which may be invoked during sexual intercourse or masturbation, but not

This is a recurrent point among diagnosis of *all* paraphilias - that the
person in question is unhappy about their fantasies and urges.  Not surprising
that this would be common among people who seek phsychiatric help - and it
is that biased sample upon which these diagnoses are made.

>    sadistic act. Others act on the sadistic sexual urges with a consenting
>    partner (who may have Sexual Masochism) who willingly suffers pain or
>    humiliation. Still other people with Sexual Sadism act on their sadistic
>    sexual urges with nonconsenting victims. In all of these cases, it is the
>    suffering of the victim that is sexually arousing.

See the article I type in earlier on "Social Constituents...".  The salient
point - the "sadists" described here, especially the second part, are not
*self-identified* sadists, are not involved in "the scene", do not match the
definition of "sadist" used in the SM subculture...and since it is that
subculture we are discussion here, that definition of sadism is not
relevent to the discussion of SM here.   

BTW - was this definition supposed to be in support of your previous claims
that SM is 1) unhealthy, and 2) "bad", or was it just for general information
purposes.

D!

    re .145

    I agree with you when you say that if both participants have healthy
    attitudes towards S&M, then there should be no problem. (But you know
    that some of us can't help thinking for the rest of population.  We
    know what's best for you. :-) )  For example, "dirty talking" is
    perfectly normal.  Yet, I can't get involved.  I may curse a little
    here and there, but I just can't seem to get it right in terms of
    "dirty talking."  That's not the way I feel most comfortable expressing
    myself.  I would probably end up seeking help if I were "forced" to
    express myself that way. 

    Maybe this is the same with S&M. If I don't feel comfortable with it,
    I'll probably end up seeking help if I insist on engaging in the
    activity. 

    Herb,
    
    Tell me, on what criminal complaint would a masochist be arrested?
    
    By the way, D! et alia have made it clear that they are speaking
    of consentual activities *within their definition*, and therefore,
    by their and the m.h. professionals' definition, those persons whose
    [sadistic] sexual activities involve non-consenting parties are
    beyond the pale of this discussion.
    
    							Ann B.

    	Being married to a psychologist I get to see and hear about some of
    this.  The way it works is that the book has a disorder for everyone.
    If your teenager doesn't do what he/she is told he has oppositional
    disorder.  You may have said teenager locked up for one month to see if
    htat straightens them out.  Shrink doesn't like the way someone thinks;
    they have a character disorder.  One year of therapy to see if we can
    get them to think more like a shrink.  Someone disagrees with mental
    health proffesional in a social setting; fancy sounding insant
    diagnosis/put-down/insult.  The whole thing is one group's way of
    trying to control the rest of us, sometimes involving involuntary
    incarceration with no injury having been committed against anyone.
    						JOhn
    

I must admit John, after reading your note, I began wondering what your wife
was doing in the profession!
	Mez

    For another perspective of the validity of diagnoses given
    by a mental health professional, I recommend _The Myth of Mental
    Illness_  by Dr. Thomas Szasz, of Cornell...
    
    I recall also that a recent Atlantic Monthly contained an
    article that indicated that mental health professionals
    suffered mental disorders (by their own definition!)
    at a rate significantly higher than the population in
    general...
    
    /b

    Simply because something is listed in the DSM III does *not* mean that
    it is in reality a form of mental illness.  As was pointed out earlier,
    homosexuality used to be listed in the DSM III.  I wonder if the desire
    to partake in sodomy was ever listed as a mental disorder?  It should
    also be noted that, like most publications, not everyone in the profession
    actually believes in the contents of the DSM III.  Take a look at
    Thomas Szazes (sp?) numerous writings for an extreme view as to just
    how wrong the DSM series really is.
    
    Given the description in the DSM III, just fantasizing about or wanting to
    try something "masochistic" or "sadistic" makes you a sufferer of these
    disorders.  Well, I'd best go to my local pyschiatrist and pay him/her
    lots of $$$ to cure me!

Herb,

Would it be fair then to say that you object to SM because it's in the DSM III
and if it were removed your objections would vanish? I think not.

Is the point you are trying to make that "respected professionals view this
as an aberration, which supports my view"? If so, I will have to admit that I
know that DSM III defines SM as an aberration and that I disagree. I'm much more
interested in why YOU think it's a problem (ref. para. 1 above).

In either case, the fact that SM is listed in DSM III serves to support my
thesis that SM is NOT PC, but doesn't serve to answer my question -- "why?"

	-- Charles

OBTW In California, consensual adult sex in the privacy of your home is legal.
Period. That doesn't make it accepted. That also doesn't make it relevant to
this discussion. I'm much more interested in the WHY than the WHAT.

(In response to Herb's response to my response to his quoting DSM)

>    < Still, though, why is this "unhealthy"? >-

>    A board of mental 'health' professionals has published a compendium of
>    mental disorders. It is inappropriate to describe as unhealthy those
>    activities which result in the diagnosis of one of these disorders?
>    POPPYCOCK!

Are you saying it is "POPPYCOCK" to question what this book says?  I
*do* question it, and I am not alone (as evidenced by a number of previous
replies, not only am I not alone, I am in the company of "professionals".)
I am arguing that their diagnosis of S&M as unhealthy is 1) overgeneralized
from a biased sample, and 2) uses a definition of S&M that does not
correspond well with the definition of S&M currently under discussion,
and is therefore irrelevent.  


>    BALDERDASH!
>[...]
>    That quote cannot be used to conclude the sample is biased because it is
>    composed of people who are unhappy and seek counseling. 

I didn't use that quote to "conclude" anything.  I made my conclusion
about the biased samples based on my own and some "professionals" i have
talked to knowledge about how such diagnoses in general are arrived at.
I used the quote just as an *example* of how the biased sample would affect
the diagnosis.

>    As an *obvious* example, some people are in that category because they have
>    been arrested as the result of a criminal complaint.

People who have been arrested are (in general) those who participate in
non-consensual forms of "sadism" (their definition.)  For one, they are
hardly an "unbiased sample" either.  Also, as previously discussed, we are
talking about S&M the *subculture*, which does NOT include nonconsent,
so the fact that such people *are* a large part of the sample with which
these diagnoses were developed further indicates that their conclusions
don't apply to members of the S&M subculture.

>    P:	 		"Well, here's the medical definition"
>    C.P.:		The sample is flawed so the definition is irrelevant,
>                        and beside that, that isn't what I am talking about
>                        and beside that, they used to consider homosexuality a
>                        disease (so what good is *their* opinion)

Close... let me rephrase more accurately your rephrasing of my argument...
"The sample is flawed so the conclusions can't be held as gospel,
and besides that what the medical definition is talking about isn't what
I am talking about, therefore it is irrelevent, and they used to consider
homosexuality a disease which shows that they are fallible and subject to
political influence."

I resent your rephrasing.

>    Point:		mmmm ... that's why I withdrew from the conversation
>                        in the first beginning!

Why?  I still don't understand.  Even with your ridiculous rephrasing, 
you *still* haven't addressed what I consider valid points.

>    As for the rest:
>    Prhaps a letter to the A.P.A. might be effective.?

Yes, soon.  It's not time yet, it won't do any good, but I'm working on
it.  The problem is that the APA *is* influenced by politics, and as yet
sadomasochism is still politically incorrect, so S&M will still be lumped
in with the broad and simplistic definitions of sadomasochism they use,
and therefore written off as unhealthy.

BTW, there is an important point missing - you keep calling SM unhealthy,
what do you mean?  Is it that you think sadomasochistic behavior is
*evidence* of a mental disorder, or do you think sadomasochistic behavior
is in and of itself damaging to the mental health of those who practice
it?  Two *very* different things, and before I continue this discussion
I'd like to know which you are arguing for.

Another BTW, I think "POPPYCOCK"'s and "HORSEFEATHERS"'s are uncalled for.
For some strange reason, I am taking this discussion seriously, and would
appreciate that you do the same.

A third BTW...you never answered my point about mental illness being
determined by how their behavior affects their life and mental well-being
and adaptability, rather than by comparison to some norm.  Do you agree
or disagree?  (What about all those PhD in clinical psych you hang out
with?)  My basic idea is that things like the definition you quoted
are to be used as *tools* in diagnosis, not to call a person crazy on
the definition alone; I would venture to say that just about anything
can be classified as a disorder - but the person involved is not suffering
from "mental illness" unless the behavior resulting from the so-called
disorder causes his or her life to be dysfuctional.

"Jellyism - this disorder is marked by eating, or fantasizing about eating,
peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, over a period of at least 6 months.
Patients suffering from this disorder who don't actual eat peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches are often troubled by their fantasies.  Some people
suffering from this disorder eat so many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches
that their stomach is ruptured."

What I described above *is* a disorder!  That doesn't mean that *everyone*
who falls into the category of "eating or fantasizing about eating..."
suffers from Jellyism.  Jellyism is characterized by this, but if someone
exhibits those characteristics, they must be examined *further* to see
they are truly suffering from Jellyism.

A fourth and final BTW - you still haven't said why you think S&M is
*morally* wrong (leaving mental illness out of it for the moment).
I, for one, am much more interested in *that* than whether S&M is a
disorder (I know it isn't.)

OOps, I lied, I have one more BTW - by their own definition of sadism and
masochism, I would be willing to bet that fully %30-%50 of the population
suffers from this "disorder".  (How many people reading this file do
you think have tied someone up or been tied up in a sexual situation?)

D!

I finally brought the book in with the wonderful quote on mental health
that pretty much sums up my philosophy.  the quote is from _Sundiver_
by David Brin, who attributes it to a "Lawrence Kubie".  Some of Brin's
quotes are from real people, some aren't; I have no idea who Kubie is.
But anyway, the quote is good...

"The measure of (mental) health is felixibility (not comparison to some
'norm'), the freedom to learn from experience...to be influenced by
reasonable arguments...and the appeal to the emotions...and especially
in the freedom to cease when sated.  The essence of illness is the freezing
of behavior into unalterable and insatiable patterns."

While rumaging around my books last night, I also stumbled across my
textbook _Human_Sexuality_ by Luria, Friedman and Rose, which has this
to say about paraphilias, under the chapter entitled "Sexual Variations",
the in the section called "Variations in Degree or Kind?"...
(In context, they are discussing how you can tell normal, expected
sexual deviation that fits the description of a paraphilia from
truly "unhealthy" sexual behavior.)

"Sexual variations differ from typical sex in their compulsive quality.
Often, the script of the variation must be performed in a precise way, over
and over again, with certain special sights or props under certain special
conditions.  Without the leather boots, or the sight of a woman through her
window, or the protests of a 'slave', there is no sexual excitement.
Compulsion is not choice.  The people who perform these acts often would 
prefer *not* to, for these acts may make them feel uncomofrtable and - 
given the illegal nature of some sexual acts - disrupt their lives.  But
they may not be able to stop themselves."

and this...

"The current standard defition of which forms of sexual behavior are
variant comes ffrom the diagnostic bible of clinicians, the APA's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition.
This manual defines categories of psychosexual disorders, and under the
heading 'paraphilias', it lists sexual variations. Interestingly, the
defintions have changed over time.  That these defintions are not
fixed tells important truths about sexual variations: even the experts
do not alwaysunderstasnd them very well, and the sexual variations
themselves are subject to culturee defintiion, like other sexual behaviors."

(It goes on to make the same point about social opinion affecting
the DSM, homosexuality being the case in point, that I did.)

Just food for thought.

D!

>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition.

What do statistics have to do with mental health? (I would like it best if
someone who _believed_ it would explain it to me. Or at least someone who can
give that side of it.)
	Mez

	This discussion has led me to think about how I view the
	activities of others - not just in the bedroom either.

	Since I don't have the answer for anyone else, I don't 
	see how anyone could have the answer for me.  And I don't
	really care how "official" or how "reputable" the source is
	that is being quoted.

	As a very young child I questioned authority figures and
	I see no reason to stop now.  Especially, if the person
	doing the research and the basics of that area of expretise
	is deeply entrenched in maintaining the status quo.

	As to the initial question about the PCness of SM - if it
	is based on a consentual relationship it is most likey more
	PC then many hetero relationships.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Getting and giving pleasure are sacred
			acts and definable only by the participants.

>	As a very young child I questioned authority figures and
>	I see no reason to stop now. 

 Good point. Especially when those people have jobs etc to protect.

>			Getting and giving pleasure are sacred
>			acts and definable only by the participants.

 Exactly. Well said.

 The Doctah

    
    re:.165
    i believe what she meant was that many heterosexual relationships are
    coercive, i.e. *non* consentual. in fact, some people believe that
    virtually all relationships between men and women are non-consentual.
    i personally think that's overstating it a little; but it is obvious
    to me that non-consentual relationships offend the political, personal 
    and social ideals of many members of this conference, myself included.
    s&m, however, as defined by its advocates here, does not appear to be
    one of them. 
    
    i am at a loss to understand how you thought she was implying 'that
    S&M is not hetero'.
    
    

>    <<< Note 820.168 by AERIE::THOMPSON "trying real hard to adjust ..." >>>

>    Don't feel bad ... those who enjoy Dominant/Submissive roles are
>    themselves confused between homosexual and heterosexual themes ...

	 Where the hell did you pull THAT one out of????????

>    It appears (based on reading elsewhere) that sometimes people who
>    are normally heterosexual may find within the "confines" of a D&S
>    experience an opportunity to confront their homophobic feelings.

	 Quite possibly true (I would like to see your "readings" on
	 this, tho).................How the heck you can turn "some
	 people" into "all" is beyond me.....

	 Eagles should really watch what they write..........because
	 oft times they write with out thinking and their logic is all
	 wet.

	 kath

    
    sorry old boy, i'm a _real_ intellectual
    

This note is really in response to some replies exchanged in the "What is
a feminist" note between Suzanne Conlon and myself.  I said part of the
reason I wasn't a feminist was because in the case of, say, a woman who wants
to be a slave to a man, most feminists I have met would automatically say
"That's cool, it is up to the woman to decide", but when I really question
them, they are against it.  Suzanne said I was confusing political with
personal views...I was thinking about that, and realized that no, I wasn't,
those views were, in part, political, as well as a personal repulsion.
And a related example, a hypothetical conversation, one that more or less
summarizes longer and more involved conversations I have had with a number
of feminists, popped into my head.  However, the example is even more
appropriate to this topic...

So image this hypothetical conversation between me and Ms. Jane Feminist.

Me; Alright, Jane, lets talk about politics.  I know how you feel about
    S&M, but lets put that aside for a minute, and talk about it from
    a political point a view, a Feminist point of view.

Jane: Alright, speaking from my Feminist self...

Me: Let's say I am a woman, and I like to be tied up and dominated and hurt
    in certain ways during sex.  Is that okay?

Jane: Certainly.  As long as it's consensual.  Every woman should have the
      option to choose to live the way she wants, and if that is what she
      *wants*, that's cool.

Me:  Okay...let's say that my SO and I like to take pictures of the things
     we do with eachother, so we can look at them later for erotic purposes.

Jane:  Well that's fine.  As long as it's consensual, as I said before.

Me: It's consensual.  Now let's say that my SO and I have some friends with
    similar interests. They like to take picture too, and sometimes we get
    together and look at eachothers photos, maybe even exchange photos with
    them.

Jane:  Well, that's not a problem, as long as all the people involved *wanted*
        to have those pictures taken and exchanged, and aren't being forced
       or coerced into it.  

Me:  Alright.  Let's say I have more than a few friends.  For instance, I
     belong to a club that has a few hundred members.  But we still like
     to exchange photos, but to make it easier, we print them together in
     a newsletter for all the members of the club.  With the consent of
     those in the photos, of course.

Jane (sensing where this is heading): Well, yeah, I suppose that's okay.

Me (reminding her): Remember, these are photos of women painful and humilating
   situations, because you said earlier that it is okay for women to be in
   such situations as long as it was consensual.

Jane (uncomfortably): Uh...well yeah, they are.

Me: Okay fine, now lets say that we want to make this newsletter available
    to people not in the club.  Perhaps to prospective members, or members of
    other related clubs?

Jane: Yeah, well, hmm...I guess that'd have to be okay too.

Me: Maybe we are charging for the newsletter.  What about that?

Jane; You'd probably start running into problems with pornography laws if
      you sold it.

Me: well, yeah, so I guess we'd have to get liscenses for it, and sell it
    places where it is legal to sell pornography - adult bookstores, and
    the like.

Jane: In other words, you are producing a S&M pornographic magazine?

Me: Well, yeah, basically...

Jane:  Nope, out of the question, showing pictures of violence towards
       women encourages men to rape women...at very least it desensitizes
       people towards violence towards women so it is seen as marginally
       socially acceptable.

Me; But the pictures aren't of violence!  They are of consensual forms of
    sex which you already said was okay!

Jane: But Joe Blow on the street doesn't know they are consensual...

And so on.  This argument usually continues on about the difference between
hiring a model and taking pictures of women who are doing it anyway.  About
how violence is legal, unless you combine it with *sex*...(At which point
I say...'Oh, so it's okay to show women being hurt, as long as they aren't
also getting any of the sexual stimulus which is generally considered
pleasurable in addition...so you can show them being hurt, but you can't
show them enjoying it.')  Etc.  I think you get the point.

The end result of this conversation is usually a stalemate, and a tenuous
statement from Jane that "It's okay to take pictures and exchange them,
but you can't sell them to the general market" or something like that.

Anti-pornography, and especially anti-so-called-'violent'-pornography seems
to be a central theme for many (dare I say most?) Feminists.  That is
(one reason) why I am not a Feminist.  (Ever noticed in this file how
people who are pro-porno or anti-censorship always qualifiy it with
'except violent or child pornography?'  Classifying to two together...
what a lovely comparison.)  I think I should be allowed to buy pictures
and stories about a form of sex that Feminists say is my right to enjoy.

One part of Andrea Dworkin's definition of pornography (in a bill she 
and Catherine MacKinnon presented to make such illegal) (and yes, 
granted, Andrea Dworkin is hardly 'mainstream feminism')...
"Pornography is the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women
through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the
following...(ii) Women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy pain
or humiliation...(iv) Women are presented as sexual objects tied up...
or physically hurt...(v) Women are presented in postures or positions
of sexual submission, servility, or display...(ix) women are presented
in scenarios of degradation...torture...or hurt in a context that makes
these conditions sexual."

And my question is, how can S&M be PC if it is not only PI to sell pictures
of it but *illegal*?  It's more acceptable to show *only* violence 
towards women than to show violence and sex.  "R rated movies can show
a woman's nipple being shot off, but not being sucked."

D!

re: .177

I'm a little confused about the question you are asking Ms. Jane F., and
also about your conclusion.  I think the question of what do you mean by
"OK" is crucial to your judgement of Jane.  (OK meaning should-be-legal is
very different from OK meaning I-wouldn't-do-it-myself.)

Giving Ms. Jane the benefit of the doubt, I propose this expansion of
detail on her position:

	1. You should be able to choose to do what you want to do.
		She may not choose it for herself, but I assume that's OK
		w/you. :-)

	2. If you choose to sell pictures of what you do, the effect of
		which may be that the buyer/viewer assumes that *all*
		women like whatever it is you do, the line between
		your fist and her nose has become thinner, and maybe
		even crossed.  You, and Hugh Hefner, etc. are exercising
		rights of expressing sexuality, maybe, or rights of
		capitalistic exploitation of women as sexual objects, 
		depending on your point of view.  You and your friends
		and others may enjoy the sexuality in a mutually
		respectful way, while Joe Blow might look at it in a
		woman-as-object-who-enjoys-humiliation way.

		If I was Jane, I'd say, bummer, I wish you didn't choose
		to sell that, since I don't like to be viewed as that
		object, but that's my personal opinion, my personal
		leaning for the political trade-off.  I won't sell it,
		you, obviously, can (and should) do what you decide.

		Two points:
		- Jane isn't telling you what should or shouldn't be legal,
		  in my scenario, but just what her personal choice would
		  be, given your situation.
 
		- The scenario you've described is just another conflicting
		  principles school of ethics exercise.  You're not, in my
		  view, "discovering" Jane's *real* reasoning, but rather
		  asking her to decide between 2 conflicting aspects of her 
		  (and your) politics.  You've faced the choice and
		  made that trade-off that you *and* Joe Blow will buy
		  these depictions.  She would rather Joe didn't, so will
		  probably not support the publication.

As a feminist, there are alot of things about the world that I recognize
as trade-offs, as things which *can* hurt feminism (in the wrong hands :-)),
just as as a peace-lover there are alot of things about the world that I
recognize can make war.  I don't support the things I don't like, the
things that offend my personal politics/principles, but on the other hand 
I don't actively prevent others from making their choices.  Sounds like you 
asked Jane for her opinion on what she thinks is OK for her, and are reacting
as if she said you shouldn't be allowed to make your own choice.

	MKV

	re: .177 (D! Carroll) - distribution of violent porn

	If women weren't victims of so much unwanted violence, maybe 
		I would agree with you.

	If women (non-victims) weren't socially controlled by the threat 
		of so much unwanted violence, maybe I would agree with you.

	If <above> _and_ if women weren't physically weaker than men (if we
		had >= strength as men), I would probably agree with you
		(I think).

	In a different world, maybe.  Not this one.

							nancy b.

>Note 820.179 by BITTLE 

>   ... _and_ if women weren't physically weaker than men (if we
>    had >= strength as men), I would probably agree with you
>    (I think).

Much of the philosophy presented here is about "surrendering" power,
not "not having power."  The all too common notion that 
"women are weaker than men" is obnoxious and wrong. I find that
statement immensely disagreeable. 

(Nancy, I agree with most everything you write, but this is such
a hot spot to me ... I had to leap in.)

   Meigs

(Mods: feel free to delete this note if you feel it's offstream ...)

          re: .180 (Meigs Glidewell)

          > The all too common notion that "women are weaker than men" is
          > obnoxious and wrong.

          Obnoxious, yes, and maddening, and exasperating, and unfair,
          and...

          But *wrong* ???  How is that wrong?

          Male hormones produce stronger (66% stronger) muscles than female
          hormones.  In other words, an estrogen-based human is no physical
          match for a testosterone-based human.

          >  I find that statement immensely disagreeable.
          >  (... but this is such a hot spot to me ... I had to leap in.)

          Why is it a hot spot and disagreeable to you?

          It's a hot spot to me too, but in a different way, it seems.

          It's just one of those things that are part of being a women,
          like your period or something [this is the attitude that I'm
          trying to develop, at least].  One can take Midol or Model
          Mugging to offset part of the downside, but the physical reality
          of the situation will always be there.

          Meigs, your reply confused and surprised me.  I don't understand
          where you're coming from. (Have you been talking to Beth
          (VALKYR::) Rust)?   [just kidding, Beth :-]

                                                            nancy b.

     D!-
    
     I guess I didn't realize the implications of S&M and feminism. I can
    see where a problem exists now. On the one hand, women should be able
    to do whatever they want. On the other hand, women shouldn't do things
    that make things worse for other women. My cut: you should be able to
    do whatever you want with your own body- if that means distributing
    pictures of yourself all trussed up, so be it. As long as all the
    pictures were arrived at consentually, it should be ok. Of course, it
    would be alot easier to say that of the viewers were all aware that not
    every woman believes that is "ok."
    
     The Doctah

.178 (mary Vaskas)

>                           -< excuse the length... >-

Heh heh...my notes are notoriouslky long and tedious, so... :-)

>		- Jane isn't telling you what should or shouldn't be legal,
>		  in my scenario, but just what her personal choice would
>		  be, given your situation.
 
Not just her personal choice, but her personal *political* choice.  I am
explaining why I do not identify myself as a Feminist.  It is because
there are many instances where the political choices of many or most
Feminists do not align with mine.  These particular aspects (S&M, porno-
graphy, and especially the combination of the two) just happen to be
important to me and relevent to the discussion.  There are other examples.

>		- The scenario you've described is just another conflicting
>		  principles school of ethics exercise.  

Certainly.  I am asking Jane to make a decision in the conflict based on
her political views (I am giving Jane the benefit of the doubt, and assuming
that her personal disgust of S&M didn't effect her decision, that for the
purpose of this discussion she was speaking from her feminist side.)  That
is where Jane and I differ - how we would choose in that conflict.  She 
would choose one way, and I would choose another.  So our political
positions differ.  And since her political position on that matches that
of the majority of Feminists, then *my* political position on that is
not Feminist.  We are not really discussing legality - we are talking
about whether a decision based on her personal politics agrees with mine.

>		  these depictions.  She would rather Joe didn't, so will
>		  probably not support the publication.

Right.  And I would support it. So we differ.  I think you misinterpreted me
in saying that I *blame* jane, or think her views are unreasonable, or
demand that she support my views, or whatever.  I don't. I am just trying to
explain the differences, and how S&M (at least when combined with pornography)
is *not* Politically Correct within Feminism.

>recognize can make war.  I don't support the things I don't like, the
>things that offend my personal politics/principles, but on the other hand 
>I don't actively prevent others from making their choices.  Sounds like you 
>asked Jane for her opinion on what she thinks is OK for her, and are reacting
>as if she said you shouldn't be allowed to make your own choice.

No, I know she might allow me to make my own choice.  But she wouldn't,
say, vote for repealing the laws against 'violent' (God, I had using that
word in this context) pornography, and I would.  We have political differences
in that, and many other areas, and since by definition Jane Feminist holds
the views of the majority of Feminists, I am not a Feminist. 

BTW, I am not sure you (pl.) are aware that there *are* laws against S&M porno.
To sum it up, S&M porno doesn't exist.  Not legally, and not made in this
country (I understand there is some Oriental stuff that has made it into this
country.)  Look all you want (and trust me, i have looked) and you won't
find any magazines or videos that have real S&M (heavier than bondage, I mean,
real pain-play, or heavy submission) *and* intercourse (or penetration of
any variety.)  The pictures I talked about with Jane are *illegal*!  

Nancy...I understand the conflict.  I never said Jane was being unreasonable.
I am quite aware of the possible dangers of such publications, and I know that
there are a lot of people who wouldn't understand the difference between
consensual submission and violent objectification of women.  However, in such
a conflict, trade-offs must be made, and you and I differ in which resolution/
compromise is the better one.  And you are a Feminist and I am not.  How
convenient! Can I call you Jane?

Doctah...so, you side with me on this one.  Nice to know someone does! :-)

D!

>Doctah...so, you side with me on this one.  Nice to know someone does! :-)
    
    I doubt it will do ya much good- they've already perfected the art of
    "stoning" the Doctah. :-) :-)
    
    The Doctah
    
    (Well, I did get some positive mail this morning. I figured I'd balance
    it out. :-) :-)

>Doctah...so, you side with me on this one.  Nice to know someone does! :-)
    


	 Naw...he's not the only one that sides with you.......but
	 then again, I'm not much of a worthy ally these days in here
	 anyway!

	 kath

re: D!
I. I think I get what you're saying

So, what I hear you saying is that because you make the choice to 
support public distribution of depictions of women involved in 
subjugated sexual situations, you are not calling yourself a feminist.
Because some feminists think that might hurt more women than it helps,
while you either disagree or don't think it matters -- is that accurate?

The question isn't whether you think others think :-) practicing S&M
is "feminist", but whether publishing violent pornography is -- a very 
different question, I think.  Participating in S&M is not the question at all.

II. So...
OK, given that -- what does it have to do with promoting equality of rights
for women?  If both you and Jane do, doesn't that make you both feminists,
even if  you disagree about means to the end?  Or do you think you
disagree on the goal?

III. Personal opinion on the subject, not the conversation :-)

I would no more support (i.e., buy, donate money to, buy for my brother)
a magazine portraying a woman enjoying sexual subjugation than one enjoying
domestic subjugation (you know, smiling while she scours the toilet bowl), or
one with 1001 makeup tips to hide what you look like, etc.  They are all in
the same category for me -- they enforce images of women that aren't me.
But I would defend the right of any individual woman to make
their own choice to live that image, and even buy the magazine.  
That is *one and only one* feminist's position.  Some will burn the magazines,
some will publish them, but all these women can be feminists, if they care
about the same goal, in my mind.

	MKV

     
    Unfortunately, folks, there are quite a few vocal organizations
    out there who purport to speak for womens rights and who also believe
    in censorship as a means to gain this equality.   S&M is just one
    of the non-PC topics subject to their censorship attempts. I choose
    not accept a label which in any way associates me with this behaviour,
    hence I do not accept the feminist label.
    
    Does it seem right to want to belong to a group of folks who (on
    a more liberal day) might condescend to accept what you do in private-
    but just don't make it public? If a woman/couple CHOOSES to sell
    pictures of themselves in an SM situation, who's business is it
    besides theirs and the purchaser.  The regulation of morality just
    doesn't work no matter what your political affiliation or which
    god is on your side. 
    
 -maureen
    
    
    
    
       
    
    	

    And so it always comes to this. When we discuss freedoms and
    ideologies there is always a case that pushes it to the edge.
    Because if we only have the freedom to be moderate, in effect,
    we have no freedom.

    I agree with Maureen, I've seen it too. Some Feminists with a
    capital F have indeed advocated censorship. They are ready to slam
    the lid on anything that may suggest some women chose sexual outlets
    of which they do not approve. When I see some of what I consider
    violent,degrading acts against women it bothers me and frightens me.
    But where do we draw the line? And even more importantly, WHO draws
    the line? liesl

    I find it woeful that there are so many strong women here who reject
    the feminist identifier, particularly as that rejection is based on the
    behavior of a minority fringe of women in the feminist movement.  
    
    The women of that fringe, who damn diversity and who try to arrogate to
    themselves the right to decide who may claim our wonderful label with
    its proud history of struggle...those women are the spiritual
    descendents of the Nazis, not the Suffragettes!
    
    						=maggie

    OK, OK, OK, enough of this even-tempered stuff!
    
    I didn't know much (if anything) about S&M practices or devotees before
    this topic.  Thank you to those who have written about why you enjoy
    it.  It has been really eye-opening.    O-O     :-)
    
    When you come right down to it, S&M sex is NOT a "politically correct",
    "feminist" activity.  For instance, suppose someone stood up at a NOW
    or League of Women Voters meeting and stated:  "I make a motion we
    openly support the right of women to engage in 'violent', consensual
    sex in which pain is erotic.  Furthermore, it should be a valid option
    for a woman to sign willingly a slave contract in which she is
    acknowledged as submissive to a man."  That would probably be voted
    down as antagonistic to the goal of such feminist organizations to free
    women from roles in society that are submissive NOT from choice.  The
    point of traditional feminism is to move toward equality, not to choose
    submission.
    
    As a feminist, I generally agree with this:  I like equality as my
    usual means of interacting with people.  I would not want to fight
    actively for the right to be submissive.  (Why fight for what you've
    already got, right??!  joke, joke  :-)
    
    HOWEVER, --read this please-- I personally strongly feel that whatever
    you do at home that you consent to is YOUR OWN BUSINESS.  Period.  
    Having read the notes in this string, I can see that for some people it
    is a genuinely enjoyable mutual activity.  That is something I didn't
    fully appreciate before -- particularly that there are rules for doing
    it consensually and that there is a "release word".
    
    So, the issue of whether or not it is "politically correct" is not
    always relevant when it comes to individual feminists.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    That's my view of whether it is politically correct or not.  (Don't
    know if I should answer to "Jane" or not...!)
    
    On my view as to whether it should be sold openly in stores, I don't
    think so.  Selling it in stores takes it FAR, FAR away from its
    consensual beginnings.  Joe Blow on the street doesn't know it's
    consensual -- he may think the woman is feeling pain and is genuinely 
    unwilling and he may find that exciting.  He may have violent images in
    the back of his mind when he's dealing with a woman who is resisting
    him.  He may think, hey, the women in the pictures love it.
    
    I find that scary.
    
    Trading pictures in a small group where all the participants know each
    other and all KNOW that it's consensual is one thing.  But selling
    pictures is different.  You're no longer in touch with the fact that it
    was consensual.  It's against MY consent to be publicly subjegated and
    objectified against my will in a way I find frightening.  I have not
    agreed to this.  There's no control.  There's no "release word" you can
    say to Joe Blow on the street because he doesn't know there are rules
    about this kind of sex.
    
    So, to sum up:  
    
    I don't think it is technically the "politically correct" feminist party
      line.  
    I don't care, if you keep it private.   
    I DO care, if you make me an unwilling party to it, by making it public.
    
    Whew!
    
    Pam

    
    I can't think of anything that a woman in this file has said that
    advocated censorship.  Am I missing something?  If I saw something
    that offended me in a store in my neighborhood, I might speak to
    the store owner about it, or I might boycott the store.  I might
    even participate in a protest outside the store.   But those kinds
    of actions are not censorship.  They represent my attempts to express
    my outrage, and they might be effective in convincing a vendor to
    stop selling products that offend her/his customers.  I think that
    people often accuse feminists of censorship unjustly.
    
    Justine

	 .191 (Justine)
	 
>    If I saw something
>    that offended me in a store in my neighborhood, I might speak to
>    the store owner about it, or I might boycott the store.  I might
>    even participate in a protest outside the store.   But those kinds
>    of actions are not censorship.  They represent my attempts to express
>    my outrage, and they might be effective in convincing a vendor to
>    stop selling products that offend her/his customers.

	 Huh?

	 Censor:  prohibiting of literature, plays, and/or material
	 that is considered to be morally or otherwise objectionable.

	 By trying to force a vender into discontinuing the selling of
	 a product (ie, he will lose business if he doesn't), aren't
	 you, in effect, censoring the product?

	 I don't understand your point.  By boycotting/protesting/etc,
	 you're trying to force your morals onto others to get
	 something removed simply because you find it objectionable.
	 What about those that don't find it objectionable?  Aren't
	 you, by these actions, attempting to censor what they have
	 the right to read/buy?

	 
>     I think that
>    people often accuse feminists of censorship unjustly.

	 I don't think it's unjust.  I don't understand what the
	 difference is between what you just described and censorship.
	 You're trying make something unavailable to everyone because
	 you feel it is morally or otherwise objectionable.  Is that
	 not censorship????


	 I don't see a difference.....please explain how
	 boycotting/protesting/etc is not a desire for censorship....


	 kath

    I believe you should check your note out on Free Enterprise.  We all
    have the right to patronize what stores and buy whatever products we so
    desire. That does *not* force the store owner to discontinue selling
    those products or not ... then can do whatever they want.  It is not
    prohibiting them from stocking or not said product.  If enough of us
    did exactly the same thing, then the store owner might decide it wasn't
    economically viable to stock the product, but that's no different from
    any other product where supply is higher than demand.

re: .191
I agree.

re: .192
There's a huge difference between expressing an opinion that something 
is offensive to one (e.g., picketing, discussing), not financially
supporting something (boycott), and prohibiting someone else's
expressions (censorship).

Prohibiting is different than persuading (intellectually, or economically).
If no one wants to by something someone sells, they are not censoring
the seller -- they are just not creating a demand.

If two sides can both express their opinions, they are not censoring
each other, but rather both using their rights, sharing their thoughts,
hoping the other side will listen and think, and maybe even be
convinced of something.  "Hey, wait, I think that's gross and
offensive, it's calling me and your wife and your daughter names" is 
different than "Shut up and go away or I'll shoot".  

I haven't seen anyone advocating censorship here either.

(I agree that it's a small, lunatic fringe of feminists who do, in
my experience -- in fact, none in my personal experience, though I've
read stuff by Dworkin, etc.)

Or are you suggesting that women who *are* offended by, for example,
sexist publications, should not express their thoughts?  And gays
who *are* offended by homophobes shouldn't protest homophobes?  And
blacks who *are* offended by racists shouldn't protest racists?

No, I don't agree that protest = censorship.

	MKV

    
    is anyone else irked by the manipulative arguments being wielded
    here (similar to the 'what is a feminist' note)? the willful
    mis-understanding and/or mis-construing? this is not rational,
    useful discourse. it is mind games and semantic games. it is
    beneath the dignity of this notes file.
    

	 RE: .194
	 
>Or are you suggesting that women who *are* offended by, for example,
>sexist publications, should not express their thoughts?  And gays
>who *are* offended by homophobes shouldn't protest homophobes?  And
>blacks who *are* offended by racists shouldn't protest racists?

	 Not at the risk of taking something away from another
	 individual, no.

	 By forcing a vendor (thru protests/pickets/etc) to remove a
	 product from their shelves, you are denying an individual
	 that wants that product from getting it.  You are forcing
	 your moral beliefs on someone else....

	 No, I don't think ANYONE has the right to force moral beliefs
	 on another.
	 

	 kath

>      <<< Note 820.195 by DECWET::JWHITE "ohio sons of the revolution" >>>

    
>    is anyone else irked by the manipulative arguments being wielded
>    here (similar to the 'what is a feminist' note)? the willful
>    mis-understanding and/or mis-construing? this is not rational,
>    useful discourse. it is mind games and semantic games. it is
>    beneath the dignity of this notes file.


	 Just what are you trying to say?  (I'm very defensive at the
	 moment, can't you tell?  Every note I read in this conference
	 lately, directed at me, has reeked of hatred toward me, my
	 opinions have been ridiculed and twisted......I feel I'm
	 being pushed to my limits....and they seem to be doing a very
	 good job of trying to break me.......I'm sooo close to
	 telling this file to bog off)


	 kathy

    	RE: .197  Kath
    
    	> Every note I read in this conference lately, directed at me, 
    	> has reeked of hatred toward me...
    
    	Reeked of hatred??  Why is it that when women's rights advocates
    	voice strong opinions they are accused of displaying hatred?
    
    	Does a strong voice (while vigorously advocating women's rights) 
    	automatically mean anger and/or hate to you?
    
    	Kath, when you show your anger in notes, do you actually *hate*
    	the person to whom you are responding?  I mean, do you despise
    	the individual and wish some dreadful fate for her/him?  (This
    	is a question, not an accusation.  I doubt you hate any more 
    	than the rest of us here do.  I notice, though, that for all the
    	yelling you sometimes do, I've never seen you accused of "hating"
    	because of it.)
    
    	Nothing personal, but I suspect that this "reeking with hatred"
    	thing (which I saw in a certain male-oriented conference recently
    	as well) is a way of trying to discourage women with certain
    	political leanings from expressing ourselves as openly and (ahem)
    	energetically as we do.

>	 By forcing a vendor (thru protests/pickets/etc) to remove a
>	 product from their shelves, you are denying an individual
>	 that wants that product from getting it.  You are forcing
>	 your moral beliefs on someone else....
    
    I don't entirely agree. The vendor is not forced to remove the product
    from her shelves. She can leave it there and deal with the protesters.
    
    Of course, I do hear some people calling for laws against certain types
    of materials. That is indeed censorship.
    
    Going into a store and destroying materials is a form of censorship.
    
    Protesting certain materials is not censorship. Picketing isn't either-
    though it verges on censorhip when abuse is heaped upon anyone who
    dares enter the targeted establishment. 
    
    The Doctah

    This doesn't have anything to do with SM or PC but it follows .198
    (it probably belongs in Processing)
    
    In my experience with therapy, CR groups, and teaching Karate I've
    observed that lots of women are uncomfortable dealing with
    confrontation. Lots of us turn  even simple disagreements into internal
    feelings of personal dislike and hatred (directed at ourselves).
    We just don't seem to know how to argue without getting our feelings
    hurt.  Guys don't seem to have this difficulty.
    
    

    	RE: .200
    
    	> ..I've observed that lots of women are uncomfortable dealing with
    	> confrontation. Lots of us turn  even simple disagreements into 
    	> internal feelings of personal dislike and hatred (directed at 
    	> ourselves).
    
    	Well, I think we're talking about two different things here.
    
    	It's been my experience that men in notes can rant, rave, insult,
    	FLAME ON/OFF, pound, chop, bludgeon and use the most violent
    	language imaginable, yet very rarely does someone come along and
    	say, "Gee, your note is filled with so much hatred" (turning the
    	entire discussion around exploring and probing the man's feelings,
    	including DENYING that the man *knows* what he is feeling and/or
    	denying that he is being truthful about it.)
    
    	Yet, even calm notes from women who disagree with the standard
    	patriarchal view of things can get the "let's shut her up by
    	drowning her with notes about her emotions"-notes before she has
    	even gotten a good flame started.
    
    	My observation has been that women are accused of hating (men,
    	other noters, or whoever) as part of a stereotype about women,
    	and as such, I am very opposed to it.

    On censorship...
    
    I think it's normal for any group to censor it's membership to some
    extent.  Every group has some kind of behaviour standard or
    expectations regarding the beliefs of its members. This is different
    than the kind of "legal" censorship which must be applied to a diverse
    population.
    
    On protest (and civil disobeience, too)
    
    I most certainly believe in protest as a means to voice an objection.
    I don't eat meat, wear fur, or buy grapes or Coors beer or Shell Oil 
    products or pornography. And yes, I was in Chicago for the Democratic
    Convention.  But those decisions for me are personal choices, 
    and not dictated by what the feminist party line (or anybody's party
    line)
    
    Each of us has the resposibility to examine our own actions to see
    if they are consistent with our beliefs - not just accept what we
    are told is PC.  Telling right from wrong is not an easy task these
    days - you can't just accept an image.
    
    -maureen
    
    made because I'm
        

    Maureen and Suzanne, I agree with you both: I think you're talking
    about two different origins for the same observed phenomenon.
    
    Kath, even on denotational grounds I believe you are wrong about the
    meaning of "censorship", but if your dictionary supports you I'd be
    glad to know what it says.  And I do think we should stick with
    denotation since connotation would have to be decided by survey.
    
    As to your assertion that people shouldn't "force their beliefs" on
    others by boycott, I would argue that no such thing is occurring:  as
    someone pointed out, the store owner is at liberty to keep the material
    on his [most owners are men] shelves...and even *give* it away if he so
    desires.  If a boycott works, it works because of economics and the
    self-interest of the owner.  So to say that I am "forcing my beliefs"
    on you by not buying something I don't want is pretty strange...I could
    just as reasonably argue that you are "forcing your beliefs" on me when
    you don't buy traditional folk music albums.
    
    						=maggie 

>    So to say that I am "forcing my beliefs"
>    on you by not buying something I don't want is pretty strange...I could
>    just as reasonably argue that you are "forcing your beliefs" on me when
>    you don't buy traditional folk music albums
    
     Hmmm. Let me address this.
    
     I assume that you will acknowledge that a negative impact is usually
    felt by a business that is being picketed. It is certainly not because
    a group of people who would never have bought the stuff anyway publicly
    say they would never buy the stuff (and don't). It's because people are
    often intimidated from dealing with the picketers- and so business
    suffers. And when it comes to porno shopps, I'm sure you think "Hey, I
    just can't see anything wrong with that." And I can certainly
    understand your point. But, let's try putting the shoe on the other
    foot for a moment.
    
     Let's say there's this group of real misogynists (gasp!). And they
    decide they have seen enough of this feminism stuff. So they go to a
    feminist bookstore and picket outside, calling anyone who enters the
    shop names and generally behaving in a manner completely analogous to
    the group down the street that is picketing the porno book store. Both
    groups are very effective. Sales in the porno bookstore plummet. Hooray
    for feminism, right? Well, sales in the feminist bookstore also
    plummet, because many women just don't want to deal with the hassle of
    having to go past the picket line of catcallers and harrassers. So now
    some women aren't going to the feminist bookstore because they  are
    intimidated. So much for the hooray.
    
     Even if both places stay open, the loss from women not going to the
    feminist bookstore is real IMO. It's not _nice_. And that bothers me.
    And while it is easy to say "too bad" when you feel your cause is PC,
    it's not so easy when the same principles are applied to your group's
    detriment. Even when everything is perfectly legal.
    
     The Doctah

>       <<< Note 820.199 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Je pense, je ris, je r�ve" >>>

>    I don't entirely agree. The vendor is not forced to remove the product
>    from her shelves. She can leave it there and deal with the protesters.


	 Agreed.......but, by leaving the product there, and having to
	 deal with the protestors is bad publicity......and bad
	 publicity can get a vendor shut down quite easily.

	 kath

    Maybe I've missed something here, but boycotts are totally different
    from picketing.  It simply means those people "boycotting" a product
    or services don't purchase it ... no more, no less.

    
    	Kathy, I don't understand what you're trying to say.  Do you
    	think it's right that 7-11 distribute child pornography (the
    	questions of legality is moot because if you really push it,
    	delegalizing anything is censorship of some sort) because we
    	have some people in this society who'd like that to happen?
    
    	And that people who protest such things are wrong because to
    	picket 7-11 is, in effect, censorship and bad press for 7-11?
    
    	Help me understand your point.
    
    	Carla
    

>Do you
>    	think it's right that 7-11 distribute child pornography (the
>    	questions of legality is moot because if you really push it,
>    	delegalizing anything is censorship of some sort) because we
>    	have some people in this society who'd like that to happen?
 
    If you are referring to the instance when an organized group boycotted
    and picketed 7-11 and all businesses owned by the same group to protest
    the sale of Playboy and Penthouse (etc) I think it would be inaccurate
    to call them "child pornography." Child pornography IS illegal. I
    believe that the management of 7-11 caved into the demands of the
    protestors and removed said literature from their shelves. 
    
    The Doctah

    
    	Actually, Mark, I wasn't referring to anything factual.  I was 
    	simply pulling a random, albeit extreme, hypothetical example 
    	out of the air to help better understand Kathy's beliefs.
    
    	Carla
    

Carla,

Using child pornography as an example doesn't work, because it *is* illegal.
You can't ignore the illegality, because, in theory, it is illegal because 
*most* people in the country feel it is immoral.

Saying that it is one form of censorship doesn't really work either.  It is
true, it is, but it is pictures of something that *is* illegal, and the
making the activity itself illegal isn't censorship.  Seems to me it is
illegal to take pictures of children having sex mainly because it is 
illegal for children to *have* sex.  

For your example to work, take something as extreme as you want, but that
is legal.  At any rate, a group picketing child pornography *is* trying
to censor said pornography.  Whether such censorship is "bad" is up to you...

At any rate, I think that boycotting is protest, and is fine; picketting
is censorship, and isn't.  Using econmic demand to reduce or eliminate 
something you find offensive is fine.  Using personal harassment of potential
buyers and sellers is not. Even if the picketers don't actually harass
customers, you can bet there are a lot of people who are afraid they will,
and will be deterred by their presence.  Boycotting means *you* won't buy
it in hopes that will stop the manufacturer or seller...picketting means
you are trying to keep other individuals from buying it.  Isn't that
censorship?

If a group advocated picketing a bookstore that sold something they found
offensive I would accuse that group of being in favor of censorship, no
matter what the group or what they were picketing.

As for whether no one in this notesfile has advocated censorship, I must
have misread Nancy's note a few back. I said, basically, "Is 'violent'
porn okay?", and she said "In this world, no." Which I took to mean she
would vote *for* a law banning such pornography.  Nancy, did I misread you?

D!

I read recently about how one group set up a "protest" against certain books
and magazines by staking out the bookstore where they were sold, and watching
every customer carefully, and marking down in little books the name of
the customer (small town, everyone knew everyone) and what books they bought.
And doing this obviously, so said customer knew s/he was being watched.
Obviously the group was trying to actively *keep* people who might want
to buy those books from buying them, through intimidation.  Is not preventing
someone through intimidation and fear of retribution as much censorship as 
preventing them through laws and fear of legal punishment?  And yet it was
still "prostest".  So obviously, yes, *some* forms of protest constitute
attemt at censorship.


D!

    
>    	Kathy, I don't understand what you're trying to say.  Do you
>    	think it's right that 7-11 distribute child pornography (the
>    	questions of legality is moot because if you really push it,
>    	delegalizing anything is censorship of some sort) because we
>    	have some people in this society who'd like that to happen?

         Hold on!  Wait a minute!  Surely by NOW everyone knows that
         my stance is "things should be legal that do NOT in any way
         effect another person, except consensually"  (That's not a
         really good way of saying that, but...)  In other words, a
	 child cannot consent to making child pornography, so it
	 should not be legal....and SHOULD be censored.

         However, I see picketters and protestors outside of porn
         stores protesting LEGAL pornography (Playboy even!).  I've
         even seen protestors outside of Domino's Pizza (and making
         phone calls telling people things about Domino's simply
         because they support something that we might think to be 'not
         PC').  Unfair bias.  The protestors are raising such a stink
         about something that is consensual made, consensually sold,
         etc.  I think that is very unfair.

	 HOWEVER....I do feel you can boycott to your heart's content.
	 I also feel you have the right to inform the public.....but
	 many times I've gone by picket lines and seen unfair bias and
	 pressure put on the consumer.......a simply horrendously,
	 exaggerated story is told to the consumer about the vendor
	 and/or the product......

	 I've made my stance CLEAR over and over again on what I feel
	 should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed.  That you
	 can come up with an example like Child Pornography baffles
	 me.
	 
	 Yes, I even feel that drugs should be legalized.    



	 Awareness and education are the keys....but so is choice.


	 kath

    re .210:
    
>Using child pornography as an example doesn't work, because it *is* illegal.
>You can't ignore the illegality, because, in theory, it is illegal because 
>*most* people in the country feel it is immoral.
    
    Right, child pornography does not work as an example in this discussion
    because, as you say, it already is illegal (which means it's censored).

>For your example to work, take something as extreme as you want, but that
>is legal.  At any rate, a group picketing child pornography *is* trying
>to censor said pornography.  Whether such censorship is "bad" is up to you...
    
    We disagree that picketing is censorship, and the *definition* of
    picketing, censoring, and boycotting backs me up here.  Do *you* have
    any authority backing up your use of the words, or is it just a
    "feeling" you have about it?  Please supply *real* references, if you
    have any.

>At any rate, I think that boycotting is protest, and is fine; picketting
>is censorship, and isn't.  Using econmic demand to reduce or eliminate 
>something you find offensive is fine.  Using personal harassment of potential
>buyers and sellers is not. Even if the picketers don't actually harass
>customers, you can bet there are a lot of people who are afraid they will,
>and will be deterred by their presence.  Boycotting means *you* won't buy
>it in hopes that will stop the manufacturer or seller...picketting means
>you are trying to keep other individuals from buying it.  Isn't that
>censorship?
    
    No, it's not censorship.  It picketing.
    
    American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    "picket: 1. a person or persons stationed outside a building, as during
    a strike or boycott, to express grievance or protest. 2. To post a
    picket or pickets at a strike or demonstration."
    
    Sounds like civil disobedience to me... I'm curious, D!, are you
    against civil disobedience?  Or only when it disagrees with your
    political agenda?

>If a group advocated picketing a bookstore that sold something they found
>offensive I would accuse that group of being in favor of censorship, no
>matter what the group or what they were picketing.
    
    Wrong.  See above definition of "picket".
    
    Also see American Heritage Dictionary definition:
    
    censor: 1. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
    and remove or suppress what he [sic] considers objectionable.
    
    censorship: 1. The act or process or censoring.
    
    Hmm, doesn't include anything about pickets, only about
    *authorization*.

>As for whether no one in this notesfile has advocated censorship, I must
>have misread Nancy's note a few back. I said, basically, "Is 'violent'
>porn okay?", and she said "In this world, no." Which I took to mean she
>would vote *for* a law banning such pornography.  Nancy, did I misread you?
    
    <BIG FLAME ON!!!>
    
    We've had this discussion before (before you were here), and just 
    because Nancy (and others) say something is *wrong* does not mean
    that they are saying that it should be *illegal*!
    
    IS THAT CLEAR?!?
    
    Insert any activity that you think is (morally or otherwise) wrong,
    but do not wish to prohibit.  Abortion is a good example for many
    Americans.  How about getting drunk?  I think it's wrong, but I
    *don't* think it should be illegal!  Do you understand, D! ?
    
    <...flame off now>

    
    re .211:
    
>I read recently about how one group set up a "protest" against certain books
>and magazines by staking out the bookstore where they were sold, and watching
>every customer carefully, and marking down in little books the name of
>the customer (small town, everyone knew everyone) and what books they bought.
>And doing this obviously, so said customer knew s/he was being watched.
>Obviously the group was trying to actively *keep* people who might want
>to buy those books from buying them, through intimidation.  Is not preventing
>someone through intimidation and fear of retribution as much censorship as 
>preventing them through laws and fear of legal punishment?  And yet it was
>still "prostest".  So obviously, yes, *some* forms of protest constitute
>attemt at censorship.
    
    This is *not* an attempt at censorship.  See above definition of
    censorship again.  This *is*, however, an invasion of privacy and
    harassment, and as such, is already against the law (I may be wrong
    here, but if it isn't against the law in some areas, it should be),
    and the harassers can be prosectued under those laws.
    
    
    re .212:

>         However, I see picketters and protestors outside of porn
>         stores protesting LEGAL pornography (Playboy even!).  I've
>         even seen protestors outside of Domino's Pizza (and making
>         phone calls telling people things about Domino's simply
>         because they support something that we might think to be 'not
>         PC').  Unfair bias.  The protestors are raising such a stink
>         about something that is consensual made, consensually sold,
>         etc.  I think that is very unfair.
    
    And just what is "unfair" with protesting things one thinks is wrong?
    I'd like to ask you the same question I asked D!.  Do you think civil
    disobedience is wrong?  Or only when it goes against your political
    agenda?  See above note about when picketing crosses over into personal
    harassment.
    
    Same way *I* might disagree with picketers outside an abortion clinic.
    But it's not "wrong", as in should be illegal, even though it differs
    with *my* political agenda.  When it crosses over into harassment of
    people using abortion services, *then* it's personal harassment, and
    that is all.

>	 Yes, I even feel that drugs should be legalized.    
    
    My God, I'm gonna have a heart attack.  Something Kath and I
    agree on. :-)



    

    There may be some confusion over the terms "censor" and "censure".
    
    Censor has the definition I gave in reply .212.
    
    American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    Censure: 1. An expression of blame or disapproval.  verb: An offical
    rebuke, to criticize severely; blame.
    
    
    There are indeed people in this file who may be "censuring"
    certain pornographic expressions, but I have *yet* to hear anyone
    advocate "censoring".
    
    

>    censor: 1. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
>    and remove or suppress what he [sic] considers objectionable.
    
>    censorship: 1. The act or process or censoring.
    
>    Hmm, doesn't include anything about pickets, only about
>    *authorization*.
    
     No. That's not true. Authorization is not the verb. Remove or
    _suppress_. That is the operative word in the definition. 
    
>    This is *not* an attempt at censorship.  See above definition of
>    censorship again.   
    
     The passage which you referred to here described systematic
    intimidation designed to limit free choice for a desired end (to halt
    the distribution of certain materials). To me, that falls under the
    general definition of suppression, and hence, censorship.
    
     I believe that de facto censorship may occur without the intervention
    of "authorized" individuals taking control. Your mileage may vary.
    
>    My God, I'm gonna have a heart attack.  Something Kath and I
>    agree on. :-)
    
     I agree too. (Thud) Ellen. Ellen? ELLEN?!!! :-)
    
    The Doctah
    
    

The dictionary here says a censor is someone who is "a supervisor of public
morals; someone who tells others what to do" (This is the second definition,
after the one about Roman magistrates.)  Censorship is something about
(sorry just looked it up but dont have the book here) supressing, expurgating,
changing or reviewing literature.  Period.  Doesn't say anything about
"authority".

People who work to make some piece of literature unavailable to others
are censoring it - by supressing it.  Picketting is actively working to prevent
other people from buying a piece of literature...therefore, it is censorship.

I am not against civil disobedience. I am against censorship.  Picketting
a 7-11 for selling Playboy is censorship and I am against that.  There are
other forms of picketting which are *not* censorship, and therefore I am
not against them (unless they harass people, and I am against that too.)
Unions picketting, for instance.  Or activist groups picketting outside
the Capitol.  or whatever.

Your implied insult about my being a hypocrite was uncalled for ("You only
are against things that work against your cause.")  Notice in my bit about
the bookstore, I didn't say what the *group* was.  I would be as much against
that kind of censorship if it were a pro-equal-rights group against the
selling of racist material as if it were a feminist group against the selling
of pornography.

D!

    
    <big trans-continental thud>
    holy smoke!
    i agree with kath and ellen and mark!
    

    re .215:
    
>     No. That's not true. Authorization is not the verb. Remove or
>    _suppress_. That is the operative word in the definition.
    
    Strictly speaking, the definition *is* made up of *both* words.
    You cannot have censorship without authority.  Nor can you have
    it without removal or suppression.
    
    But if the stuff is actually in stores, and for sale, then it's
    neither removed nor suppressed.  Definition of suppress: to put
    and end to forcibly.  You're right, intimidation and harassment
    will do that, but those activities *are* illegal.
    
>    The passage which you referred to here described systematic
>    intimidation designed to limit free choice for a desired end (to halt
>    the distribution of certain materials). To me, that falls under the
>    general definition of suppression, and hence, censorship.
    
    Strictly speaking, it is not censorship.  There is no authority
    involved. (Though it is an expression of *censureship".)
    
    If "intimidation" is involved, then as I've already said, that
    would be harassment, and I'm *against* that.  I think most of us
    are.  So let's leave personal harassment and intimidation aside
    now, because we've all already agreed that that is unlawful, and
    it is unlawful because the majority in this country believe it
    is wrong.
    
    Picketing is a form of protest, a form of civil disobedience, and
    people in a free society are free to engage in such activities
    for the purpose of *making a statement*.  If I read into your reply
    what you read into mine, then I must assume you favor a ban on
    picketing stores that sell pornographic materials, right?
    
    I don't believe that anyone here means that.  But understand that
    there are going to be pickets that you agree with and pickets you
    disagree with, just as there are for me.  I *disagree* with people
    picketing abortion clinics, but I certainly acknowledge their
    freedom to do so!  And *surprise*!  Personally, I wouldn't care to
    picket a pornographic shop either!  Though I *have* "boycotted"
    (if you can call it that, since my reason for not buying is based on
    personal taste) them all my life and probably will for the rest of
    my life.
    
    I also don't believe that having people demonstrate outside a porno
    shop will make customers stop buying it.  Just like if I needed an
    abortion, I wouldn't not have one because of a bunch of picketers.
    
    

    <--(.216)

� People who work to make some piece of literature unavailable to others
� are censoring it - by suppressing it. 

    D, I think you're overreaching here...let's take the case of the person
    who decides to charge $10/copy (or whatever...I've never priced it) for
    the stuff.  Since there are quite a few people who would buy it for $5
    but not $10, isn't the person who sets the price at $10 engaging in
    "censorship" by your definition?  If not, what's the difference?  Or
    let's say the city puts a $10/copy tax on it.  Isn't that "censorship"
    by your lights?  Why not, if not?  

    						=maggie

re .204 and others about picketing and censorship

    Well...About a year ago, at the grocery store I frequented at
    the time, some people started standing around outside the
    doors to the store and at the entrances to the parking lot.
    They carried signs (with too many words and too small print,
    so one couldn't easily read them) and they courteously asked
    store patrons (either entering or leaving) if they would like
    a pamphlet on their issues.  It was obviously an important
    issue for them -- they protested for *months*, well into last
    winter's cold weather.  (I don't know whether they got the
    results they wanted.)  Turned out they were protesting some
    change by the store owners in working hours for butchers.  I
    appreciated their politeness -- they didn't hassle any of the
    patrons, or force materials on people. After reading their
    pamphlet, I stopped by to discuss their issues with one of
    them, who was polite and respected my need to know more about
    the issues.

    Anyway, if a group of people were to picket my favorite
    alternative bookstore using the above tactics, I would not be
    offended, frightened, or feel they were attempting to censor
    the materials I wanted to read.  I would probably take some
    of their literature and read it; I might or might not stop
    afterwards to ask them more questions. 

    However, if I heard that some people were trying to pass
    legislation in my city making it illegal for books on certain
    topics to be sold in the city, I would definitely feel they
    were trying to censor those materials.  I wouldn't really
    care whether they were trying to prohibit sale of materials
    on feminist herstory or materials justifying the existence
    and need for the KKK:  it's censorship, and I'm against it.
    I can't condone censorship to remove materials from the
    shelves which I find personally offensive, or even to remove
    materials I might find societally dangerous in some sense (it
    *scares* me to think of some impressionable young person
    picking up a KKK leaflet which presents racism as appropriate
    and reasonable behaviour!).  I feel the evils of censorship
    outweigh the gains of removing the offensive materials:  I
    would rather do something else, such as educating people to
    my point of view (that's the *right* point of view ;).

    Continuing the analogy in another direction, if the picketers
    at my favorite bookstore were to use tactics that intimidated
    me, frightened me, angered me, or whatever, I'd feel that was
    harrassment.  I suppose I might file a complaint.  I might
    also stay away from the store until it got cleared up -- so
    in that sense I suppose the picketers would have "won" their
    cause, but at the cost of using disagreeable tactics.  I
    would have felt similarly had the butcher's union picketers
    harrassed, bullied, or intimidated grocery store patrons -- I
    would have felt it was wrong, and a poor choice of tactics,
    no matter whether I agreed with them on their issue.

    But it's also quite possible that what *I* find reasonable
    and polite behaviour by picketers/protesters might be
    intimidating or frightening to someone else.  So it's a gray
    area.

    -- Linda

    
In .218 I made the statement that I didn't think that anyone here was
advocating a ban on certain pickets, but I'm not so sure after reading
D!'s last reply.

D!, do you, or anyone else who thinks that pickets = de facto censorship,
think that such pickets should be banned (made illegal)?  If so, doesn't
*that*, by *your own* definition, amount to censorship of pickets?  If not,
why not?

    

>    Strictly speaking, the definition *is* made up of *both* words.
>    You cannot have censorship without authority.
    
    I would say that there is a difference between de juro censorship and
    de facto censorship, and that it is dependent on the presence of one in
    authority. However, the effect of de facto censorship is no less
    harmful than that of de juro censorship. And that, I believe, is the
    key point I'm trying to make.
    
>    If I read into your reply
>    what you read into mine, then I must assume you favor a ban on
>    picketing stores that sell pornographic materials, right?
 
    Well, I suppose fair is fair, :-) but no, I don't propose we ban
    picketing of porno shops.                                              
    
>    I also don't believe that having people demonstrate outside a porno
>    shop will make customers stop buying it.
    
    Actually, I know of at least one case where exactly the opposite effect
    was acheived. I was visiting my cousin in Jersey. And he was at work,
    so i had to occupy myself for awhile. I decided to walk to the store.
    When I got there, there were about 15 people picketing and hollering-
    about Playboy and Penthouse. Being about as arrogant as a 19 year old
    brat could be, I decided to supplement my coke with some reading
    material. If I didn't cause a half dozen ulcers that day.... One guy
    was yelling at me so loud, I thought he was going to have a stroke. I
    laughed in his face. I held my own one person protest, for about 15
    minutes, until the police asked me (politely) to stop agitating them.
    Wickedness knows no bounds...
    
    The Doctah

>      <<< Note 820.213 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>


	 If I might jump in here to support D! a little (I feel like
	 I'm a tag team wrestler) :-)
	     
>    "picket: 1. a person or persons stationed outside a building, as during
>    a strike or boycott, to express grievance or protest. 2. To post a
>    picket or pickets at a strike or demonstration."
    
>    censor: 1. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
>    and remove or suppress what he [sic] considers objectionable.


	 Correct..there is not thing wrong with picketing....IN AND OF
	 ITSELF.

	 What is the motive/goal behind picketing, though?  What do
	 you hope to achieve by picketing/protesting?

	 Many times picketers/protestors hope to achieve the "removal
	 of the product", or "that the action they are protesting
	 cease."

	 In other words...the movitation behind the
	 picketing/protesting is the desire to "remove or suppress what
	 is considered to be objectionable."
	 

         	 kath

>      <<< Note 820.213 by ULTRA::GUGEL "Adrenaline: my drug of choice" >>>


	 It might be wise to reply to each note separately.  I don't
	 read notes longer than 100 lines (only if it says on the
	 first page that it is addressed to me), and the only reason I
	 discovered that you had replied to me was because someone
	 addressed your reply later.

	 Now, where was I?    

	     
>    And just what is "unfair" with protesting things one thinks is wrong?
>    I'd like to ask you the same question I asked D!.  Do you think civil
>    disobedience is wrong?  Or only when it goes against your political
>    agenda?  See above note about when picketing crosses over into personal
>    harassment.

	 Sigh....okay,....I'll say this again.

	 Nothing is wrong with protesting/picketing/etc.....in and of
	 itself.

	 What is wrong is being biased, embellishing your side to gain
	 support, intimidating people, and/or demanding something be
	 stopped.

	 IMO...you can protest all you want that something is *IYO*
	 wrong, but you have no right to demand that it be
	 stopped...THAT is censorship, to me....you're suppressing
	 other's rights to that thing (whatever it might be).


	 Civil disobedience is, IMO, not the best way to go about
	 doing anything......I don't think it's "wrong" persay, but I
	 won't do it because I achieve my goals in different ways.	 

>    My God, I'm gonna have a heart attack.  Something Kath and I
>    agree on. :-)

	 We agree on a lot of things....we just go at it from totally
	 different angles.  I find it interesting that I understand D!
	 very well.  I also find that I understand most of the
	 feminists in this file very well, and that we fight for many
	 of the same things, but the method by which they go about
	 reaching there goals is something I severely dislike.....

	 hence the arguments.


	 kath


    

>D!, do you, or anyone else who thinks that pickets = de facto censorship,
    
    Ellen, to clarify- picketing doesn't necessarily imply censorship, even
    when the picketers are picketing a book or magazine. The effect of HOW
    they picket and what they do while picketing _may_ amount to
    censorship.
    
     I know you said that shouting and other distasteful things were
    illegal (and you wanted to exclude them from discussion) but it's
    pretty tough to get that enforced (and even tougher to get such a thing
    prosecuted). 
    
     I do not advocate a ban on picketing of any sort. However, I think
    that certain rules should be followed during picketing, and failing
    that, the picketers should be dispersed or (if that is unsuccessful)
    arrested for disturbing the peace or some such. I don't think anyone
    should have to run the gauntlet of screaming morons, whether they are
    entering a porno shop, feminist bookstore, or abortion clinic.
    
     the Doctah

    RE.224
   
    Kath,
    
    Since civil disobience isn't your up of tea, perhaps you could
    suggest a few techniques that are effective in you viewpoint.
    
    -mo
    

>    Since civil disobience isn't your up of tea, perhaps you could
>    suggest a few techniques that are effective in you viewpoint.



	 I work in a much more subtle way.  I work with the people
	 around me...the people I work with, the people I visit
	 with....my family, my friends.  Making a difference with 10
	 people in my life can escalate into making a difference with
	 hundreds of people.

	 I work by example as well.  The way I live my life.


	 Clear concise letters stating my opinion (without anger) in
	 well sought out places within the chain of command.

	 I feel that you cannot force anyone into doing anything.  I
	 feel you cannot legislate sexual/racial bigotry.  I feel
	 force gets you a reaction that is 180� from the one you want.


	 Force harbors resentment....and my desire is to not instill
	 resentment in anyone.  My desire is to guide and educate and
	 let the person decide for themselves!

	 There is nothing better than the satisfaction in knowing that
         you were not coerced into a decision, but rather arrived at
         it your own, with guidance.


	 kath

	 PS:  I did participate in a sit-in once in high school..the
	 teachers were on strike for over a month, and the school
	 board would not even address their complaints.  Sometimes
	 civil disobedience is necessary, but I do use it as a last
	 resort.


	 

    Can we have a clarification here?  I've seen two people now refer
    to the activity of 'picketing' as though it were quite obviously
    "civil disobedience".
    
    I thought civil disobedience involved a conscious choice to violate
    the law.  Picketing isn't against the law, is it?  It is merely
    being visible with one's protest.  In fact, I'd go so far as to
    call it protected as symbolic speech under the first amendment
    (as long as it doen't include harassment, or intimidation.)
    
    That is, picketing isn't civil disobedience, unless I'm way off.
    
    DougO

    You are correct. Civil disobediance implies breaking the law, and
    picketing is not generally unlawful.
    
    The Doctah

    re kath and Doctah:
    
    I think we're getting closer to agreement on our terms and
    defintions.
    

    re: .230 (Ellen)
    
    � I think we're getting closer to agreement on our terms and
    � definitions.
    
    Clearly this is a dangerous trend.  The next thing you know,
    we'll have understanding and from there it's just a hop and 
    skip to compromise.  Before you know it, we'll be wallowing
    in concensus.  What's this conference coming to?�
    
    Steve
    
    � Yeah, I know. . .a dang sight better than it's counterpart. . .

>D!, do you, or anyone else who thinks that pickets = de facto censorship,
>think that such pickets should be banned (made illegal)? 

You said that before, and I said you were wrong before, and I'll tell you one
more time.  I didn't say pickets=censorship.  i said picketting against
an establishment to keep that establishment from selling or producing
literature is censorship.  (or at least an *attempt* at censorship - it is
only actual censorship if it really does prevent some people from buying
o the establishment from selling said literature.)

And no, I don't support a ban on it.  I think it is censorship, and I think
censorship is something people shouldn't support, but I won't support a law
that prevents such picketting - that would not only be a violation of 
the constituional right of assembly, but I am for the most part against laws
which restrict the rights of individuals.  that would be such a law.  You 
were the one ranting and raving just a few messges back about people who
assume that if someone is against something that that person is for making
it illegal.  (Apparantly failing to notice entirely that I *asked* Nancy
if I had correctly interpreted her note.)

> If so, doesn't
>*that*, by *your own* definition, amount to censorship of pickets?  If not,
>why not?

No, it isn't censorship.  Censorship is the suppression/restriction of 
*literature*.  Supressing/restriction of pickets is a different thing.
Nevertheless, I don't support either.

BTW, a nit about how "censorship" has nothing to do with "censuring"...
my dictionary lists as one of the definitions of "censor" as "any person
who condemns or censures."  That is just a nit, though, because that is
not the definition *I* am using.  (It is def'n number 3, in my dictionary.)

D!

re .232:
    
>You were the one ranting and raving just a few messges back about people who
>assume that if someone is against something that that person is for making
>it illegal.  (Apparantly failing to notice entirely that I *asked* Nancy
>if I had correctly interpreted her note.)

    "Ranting and raving", D!?  Come on now.  Just because we disagree
    on something in which you have a deep personal opinion is no reason
    to use name-calling.  I don't appreciate subjective allegations
    in order to try to derail the topic.  They do nothing to help your
    cause, but might hinder it.
    
    No, I didn't "fail to notice" your addressing to *Nancy*, D!
    because I stated in my first reply to you what I *thought* Nancy's
    view would be.  I didn't *say* it was Nancy's view, understand?
    
    And just because you addressed your reply to Nancy, does that mean
    I am not free to give you my answer?  If it's a *real* problem, D!,
    then go complain to the moderators and have them hide or delete my
    notes.
    
>BTW, a nit about how "censorship" has nothing to do with "censuring"...
>my dictionary lists as one of the definitions of "censor" as "any person
>who condemns or censures."  That is just a nit, though, because that is
>not the definition *I* am using.  (It is def'n number 3, in my dictionary.)
    
    Do you mind telling us what dictionary you are using, D! ?

>    "Ranting and raving", D!?  Come on now.  Just because we disagree
>    on something in which you have a deep personal opinion is no reason
>    to use name-calling.  

Wasn't using name-calling.  If I remember correctly you surrounded that
particular part of your message with "<flame on>" and "<flame off>".  Since
you yourself said it was flaming, I didn't think you would object to me
calling it the same.

>    No, I didn't "fail to notice" your addressing to *Nancy*, D!

You "ranted and raved" about people "automatically assuming that because
someone doesn't support something they are for laws against it."  I said
you must have failed to noticed that I *asked* Nancy if this is what she
meant, because otherwise you wouldn't have accused me of unwarranted
assumptions.  If you say to someone "This is how I interpret this, please
tell me if I am correct", how can you accuse them of "assumptions"?

>    Do you mind telling us what dictionary you are using, D! ?

Hmm...I was at home when I wrote that note, and I am at work now (where,
alas, I have no dictionary [hey, Santa!]), but if memory serves me it
was an approximately 10 year old American Heritage Dictionary.

The definition I typed in yesterday (which you incorrectly implied in
another note was from "vague memory" from having read it some time - it
was actually clear memory from having looked it up in the dictionary in
another office not 30 seconds previous) was from Webster's Unabridged.

D!

    re .234:
    
    Your American Heritage dictionary is out-of-date, D!  Mine is newer
    (1983).  If the writers/publishers found fit to revise the definition
    of "censor" in the 1983 version, it's probably because they found some
    problem or inaccuracy of their old definition.  So yours is replaced
    by newer information.
    
    BTW, does anyone have a newer-still version of the American Heritage
    Dictionary?  If so, please post the definitions of it, and I will
    accept those in place of the ones in my dictionary (oh, and request
    a new dictionary from our cost center).
    

    re: the last couple...
    
    Censor  
    1)One authorized to examine printed materials and films and
    suppress what is objectionable. 
    2)One of 2 Roman officials overseeing the census.   -v.To subject
    to a censor's examination.
    SYNs: BAN, STIFLE,SUPPRESS
    
    Censure
    1)An expression of strong disapproval or criticism
    2)An Official rebuke. Criticism.
    
    Just an humble opinion, but the difference in these two words seems
    to lie in that one involves expression of an opinion and the other
    involves acting on that opinion.
    
    Now can we stop this pissing contest and go back to meaningful
    dialogue?
    
    	-maureen
    
    

    In re: .237
    
    Calling an entry a "pissing contest" that diverts from "meaningful
    dialogue" does not seem like a very "humble opinion."
    
    "Censure" and "censor" do stem from the same Latin root, but they also
    have distinctly different meanings. The former is an expression of
    condemnation; the latter is the active suppression of material because
    of condemnation, typically as official government action.
    
    They are as different as criticize and prosecute.
    
    It is true that dialogue can be meaningful even in the absence of
    concern for correct usage. But surely such concern should be neither
    censured nor censored.
    
    Why are ad hominum attacks so prevalent throughout this notesfile?
    
    	- Bruce

    You're right, it's not humble opinion.  And you're right about
    the roots of the words. And pissing contest refers to more than
    just one entry.
    
    What does the inflamatory argument  about usage have to
    do with SM, PC or anything else except who's definition is
    right? It's a rathole that either needs to be settled offline
    or taken to another topic. And it's certainly not a discussion
    that's being carried on in the spirit of the holidays.
    
    

    I never saw much of an "inflamatory argument about usage," but I easily
    agree that the discussion is out of hand. Let's each move on to
    something more productive (and maybe some kind soul will lock this
    topic).
    
    	- Bruce

    
    Topics in this notesfile do not get locked unless something is
    seriously and disastrously wrong with them.  I hope that if people do
    not wish to participate in this discussion, they do not participate in
    this discussion.  I would like to see the discussion bear more fruit
    than in the last n replies, but I do not think it merits locking based
    on the most recent disagreements.
    
    -Jody
    

    One of the very best things about womannotes, when we all work
    at it, is the spirit of love and support that we offer each other.
    Let us try to recall that when we write on sensitive subjects.
    Let us try and address the issues and not the personalities, try and
    communicate with a sense of sister hood, even with those we disagree
    with. There is room on this earth for a wide variety of people and
    opinions.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    Re: last 2 replies, Bingo! If the writer in question has a concern
    please send mail to the Mods. The subject in question is one of
    the ones that has to be monitored with kid-gloves in order not to
    offend the readers of this file. I've been reading this note and
    watching how it has turned. I feel that if two consenting adults
    want to *do their thing* without affect/effect (Never could get
    these straight) others then leave well enough alone. 
    
                          REK 

          re: .183 (D!)

          > BTW, I am not sure you (pl.) are aware that there *are* laws
          > against S&M porno. To sum it up, S&M porno doesn't exist.  Not
          > legally, and not made in this country (I understand there is
          > some Oriental stuff that has made it into this country.)  Look
          > all you want (and trust me, i have looked) and you won't find
          > any magazines or videos that have real S&M (heavier than
          > bondage, I mean, real pain-play, or heavy submission) *and*
          > intercourse (or penetration of any variety.)

          D!, what you say above (look all you want and you won't find...)
          contradicts 544.0 by Dorian Kottler (appended below for
          convenience):

          warning:  descriptions of graphic violence below


               Last night I attended a lecture/slide show on pornography
               given by Prof. Gail Dines-Levy. It was held in Harvard's
               Lamont Library, one of a series of events this week and next
               sponsored by Take Back the Night. Her presentation focused
               on violent pornography, and the images she showed -- from
               such publications as Hustler magazine and others she said
               she'd got in the combat zone -- were absolutely chilling:

               Woman, nude, being put through meat grinder. Women, nude and
               bloody, trussed spread-eagle on hamburger bun, ready to be
               eaten. Woman being raped. Woman being forced to have sex
               with vacuum cleaner. Woman being forced to have sex with
               snake. Similar, only slightly milder images of dead women,
               women being brutalized, in the likes of Cosmopolitan and
               Vogue. Postcard of nude woman on pool table saying Greetings
               from New Bedford, the gang rape capital of America. Slasher
               videos. Snuff videos. Cartoons whose theme is the
               degradation of and violence against women. The word
               "Chester" a nickname for real-life child molesters, after
               the Chester the Molester cartoon series in Hustler.
               Statistics correlating rise in pornography with rise in
               rape. Admissions from rapists and serial murderers that they
               were heavily into pornography.


          >  Nancy...I understand the conflict.  I never said Jane was
          >  being unreasonable. I am quite aware of the possible dangers
          >  of such publications, and I know that there are a lot of
          >  people who wouldn't understand the difference between
          >  consensual submission and violent objectification of women.
          >  However, in such a conflict, trade-offs must be made, and you
          >  and I differ in which resolution/compromise is the better one.
          >  And you are a Feminist and I am not.  How convenient!

          >  Can I call you Jane?

          Yes, D!, you have my permission :-).

                                                            nancy b.

I say:
          > some Oriental stuff that has made it into this country.)  Look
          > all you want (and trust me, i have looked) and you won't find
          > any magazines or videos that have real S&M (heavier than
          > bondage, I mean, real pain-play, or heavy submission) *and*
          > intercourse (or penetration of any variety.)

Nancy says:

>          D!, what you say above (look all you want and you won't find...)
>          contradicts 544.0 by Dorian Kottler (appended below for
>          convenience):

Hmmm...I didn't read 544.0 yet (I will in a bit, I have only 450 or so messages
to get through) but the part you appended below does not contradict what
I said. I said that you won't find pictures or movies that combine graphic
"violence" *and* graphic penetration (ie: showed, and not implied.)  Most of
the picture you described below don't involve penetration...those that do,
is it *shown*?  I doubt it.  Also, a lot of these sound like drawn pictures,
which is not what I was refering to (sorry if that wasn't clear, I meant
photos.)  

And remember, the *existence* of something doesn't imply it's legality.  Such
photos certainly exist but they aren't for sale in ordinary adult bookstores,
and if they are, it isn't for long till someone official finds it.

D!