Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    When I read this, I was upset...  I am not into S/M, nor do I believe
    in it, or its practice, but isn't the .0 the same as saying, I'm sorry
    but {ethnic} group is not allowed here. How can women, who have been
    fighting for rights, and recognition, do this to other groups of women
    when they haven't wanted it dont to them as a whole?
    
    Gale

    
    Is this serious?  I find it hard to believe that :
    1.  there are really lots of women into sado-masochism
    2.  or that people want to put limitations on free space.
    
    Are these sep's perhaps implying that the S/M women try to beat them or
    something?  Or that they walk around topless wearing painful devices on
    their bodies?  This all just sounds ridiculous!  Usually, people's
    sexual practices are not witnessed by more than 1 other person, so do
    these S/M women just walk around hitting themselves or do they wear
    signs?
    
    (BTW, I am fairly serious.  This all sounds to strange to be true.)
    
    Rachael
    

    I had to sit and think about this article for a few minutes because,
    frankly I found it confusing. Perhaps I am niave on such subjects,
    and if so, please enlighten me! But, why do these women feel the
    need to broadcast their sexual preferences? If my husband and I
    were into s/m, I would keep it private. It would be something between
    the two of us. I geuss I just don't understand why someone would
    want everyone to know what they do at home in the bedroom, whether
    it's with man or woman. 
                     
    I am I missing something here? Like I said. Maybe I am a bit naive.
    What exactly is the festival for?
    

re: Rachael

Yes, it's serious (as in, for real). This sort of thing tens to come up in the
wimmin's community fairly frequently. The way I understand it, the Sep's (and
the term really bothers me, because I know nothing about separatism that imply
antipathy for S&M) believe that S&M sex is modeled on the sort of dominance
that the partiarchy perpetuates.

Jody - I"m _sure_ we have one or two topics around on this.
	Mez    

    - Keeping your sexual preferences quiet reduces your chance of meeting
    those who share them.
    
    - If you're in a group to share experiences and feelings which are
    often ignored or suppressed, particularly when the suppression is
    linked to sex (as is the case for feminist groups or lesbian groups),
    it seems hypocritical to continue suppressing such an important part of
    your sexual life. 
    

Rachael:

>    Is this serious?  I find it hard to believe that :
>    1.  there are really lots of women into sado-masochism

There are.

>    2.  or that people want to put limitations on free space.

There are.  :-(

>     Are these sep's perhaps implying that the S/M women try to beat them or
>    something? 

No.  The objection is political, in theory.  The idea is that one cannot be
a feminist and into S/M, because S/M 1) is an artifact of the partriarchy,
2) condones and encourages "power-over", 3) is misogyninistic.  Since the 
objetions are political, and since many of those objecting take the stance
that "the personal is the political" the "it's none of your business what
I do behind closed doors" doesn't work on them.

>Usually, people's
>    sexual practices are not witnessed by more than 1 other person, so do
>    these S/M women just walk around hitting themselves or do they wear
>   signs?

Usually, yes, but not at the Festival.  As I understand it (I haven't been
there) in the past there have been S/M play areas/parties.  That is, women
doing S/M with one another.  Also there are groups/activities that while
they aren't actually *doing* S/M do promote S/M, like the leather fashion
show.  these are the things the "Seps" are fighting against.

Also, while S/M women (people, actually) don't usually wear *signs* it is
very common in presumed "safe-spaces" like the Festival to dress/act in
such a way as to make your interest know.  This includes things like wearing
leather (and I don't mean just a pair of leather shoes or something), chains,
handcuffs on the belt, etc.

The sorts of political activists who are against S/M generally think women
shouldn't do S/M at all - but if they *are* doing it, which is bad enough,
they definitely shouldn't *announce* (implicitly or explicitly) that they
are doing it (as that is akin to promoting misogyny, etc.)

For more information on this topic, look at note (I think) 820 in =wn= V2.

D!

(Why do I have the words "here we go again" going around in my head? :-)

    
    D!  thanks for the explaination.  I guess I can understand now why the
    Sep's think that the S/M people are anti-equality if the activity in
    question is going on between females and males.  More specifically, if
    the males are hurting the females and they like it.  However, if women
    are willingly performing S/M on each other, then how is that
    perpetuated by men, (unless they are watching or taking pictures)?  And
    if there are S/M play areas, why not just avoid those areas?  I can
    understand the Sep's not liking the S/M people's activity but why are
    they trying to dicate other people's lives?  Seems like that concert is
    a place where these people want to hurt each other without fear of
    judgement.  I thought that's sort-of what feminism was about -
    encouraging women to do what they want.  If the S/M people's play areas
    were clearly marked,then why not just let them be?  Do these women also
    want to discriminate against housewives because they are encouraging a
    patriarchal society?
    
    BTW- if people really hurt each other and there's any blood and open
    wounds , wouldn't that be a likely place for AIDS to be transmitted? 
    Is this their concern?
    
    Rachael
    
    
    D! - What do you mean by, "here we go again"?
    
    

    I think what we are seeing here is the maturing of the political
    movement. I don't think it's limited to women. The peace movement had
    the same sort of problems with various factions and so does the
    environmental movement. At first the common "enemy" bonds everyone
    together, then as progress is made the "little" things start to cause
    problems as disagreements surface. Coalition governments have this
    problem big time.

    As for here we go again, the disagreement over whether you can be S&M
    and still be a feminist has be argued here before. Some of us don't
    think there is a connection, that it's orthogonal (haha, I got to use
    the new word!) and others feel it's bond to the patriarchy and wouldn't
    exist without it. liesl

>However, if women
>    are willingly performing S/M on each other

Just for future reference, it isn't usually said that S/M is performed
*on* someone, anymore than you have sex *on* someone or eat lunch *on*
someone.  You do S/M *with* someone.  Saying "on" sounds very negative
and dehumanizing.

>then how is that
>    perpetuated by men, (unless they are watching or taking pictures)? 

The idea isn't that it is *perpetuated* by men, but that it is an 
artifact of the partriarchy.  The whole idea behind S&M is that exchange
of power can be erotic. It is some people's contention that the link
between power and sex is 1) a result of the partriarchy and 2) bad.

>Seems like that concert is
>    a place where these people want to hurt each other without fear of
>    judgement.  

No one hurts anyone, but I agree, it seems to me that at a place like the
Festival, women ought to be able to do whatever they want without being
judged. No everyone see's it that way, unfortunately.

>Do these women also
>    want to discriminate against housewives because they are encouraging a
>    patriarchal society?
 
Yes, many of them do.  ( I don't know about the "Seps" in particular but
there are militant groups of feminists who believe that a woman who is
a homemaker is "serving men" and that that is anti-feminist.)  I think
everyone knows *my* feelings regarding this.  ;-)
   
>    BTW- if people really hurt each other and there's any blood and open
>    wounds , wouldn't that be a likely place for AIDS to be transmitted? 
>    Is this their concern?
 
No it isn't their concern.  Re: use of the word "hurt" isn't really accurate
because it's loaded.  In common "scene" parlance it is "pain"...ie: a
common statement is "He causes me pain but I know he would never hurt me"
or some such.

>    D! - What do you mean by, "here we go again"?
    
Look at topic #209 in V2 and you'll know what I mean.  Also I have found
myself, uh, discussing the political ramifications of S&M with a lot of
different people in a lot of different forums lately.

D!

    I agree wth .10. I cannot identify with these women. The expression
    "sisterhood" did not jump to mind when I read the article.
    
    I suppose feminism is a frame of mind. If I chose to stay home and
    take care of the kids and the house etc. instead of working outside
    the home, I would not consider it serving my husband. It is still
    work, and it would be work that supports our family, not just my
    husband. I still have views regarding the rights of women and equality
    though. 
    
    Personally, this whole festival thing reminds me of feuds between
    highschool cliques.
    
    Dot

    For more information on S & M (at least what can be discussed in a
    notesfile), see also:
    
    Womannotes-V2
    820 - Is S&M PC?
    
    -Jody
    

  Even when all the men are booted out, there are still oppressors.
  Maybe it has more to do with human nature than sexual politics?

                                   Atlant