RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

windchymes -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 10:33:57 AM)

I knew there was a reason I never had the desire to go to New Zealand.



Amaros -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 11:44:39 AM)

I'm afraid I agree with the OP in principle: your politics are your business, but conservative BDSMr's/Gays/etc. are a lot like vanilla women - they marry a guy thinking they'll be able to change him later - some things never change.

On the face of it, it isn't that strange, there are any number of intersections between conservatism and BDSM: corporeal punishment, male supremacy, control and dicipline, etc., not all that different from average life in pre-sexual revolution America, but that is the point: for conservatives, this is not really kink, it's politics, and always will be, and thus susceptible to political pressure.

In my very conservative hometown for example, a man dominating a woman is not all that controversial, but engaging in anal sex makes you gay, period - making me a bit of an anomoly, being a strictly heterosexual gay man, and this sort of redefnition tends to have consequences, since a lot of people who don't know me seem to think I'm gay, because of this particular political reaction formation that is really, for the religious right in particular, about the whole "family values" issue, i.e., anything that isn't strict heterosexual monogyny is suspect, and any sex that doesn't have the potential to result in pregnency is classed with the whole imaginary liberal/gay agenda, including oral, masturbation, etc., etc. as if how and who with you use your bodily appendages and orifices in privacy has anything to do with how you raise or relate to your family, or anybody else on a social level - it's an identity issue, which is why it tends to defy logic.

These are very central, fundamental conservative identity values, and while I don't say it's wrong to be into kink and be a conservative, it's just that to the conservative "core", you might as well be a liberal - if any of this made logical sense. And, this is a huge issue, it's the only one the far right has left at this point, having shit the bed in every other area, economics, foreign policy, energy, etc.

So, if you are a conservative and into kink, I have to take my hat off to you, and wish you luck, and clearly there is no shortage of you - personal freedom is ostensibly a conservative value, but politically, sex issues are an extremely convenient football, and often used to distract the electorate form more germane issues.

Just notice what a wedge issue it has become in this thread - if we're all at each others throats, nobody is minding the store - divide and conquer.

Of course, as a liberal myself, I have to deal with the backlash from liberal feminists who cannot fathom why any woman would enjoy wearing a leash and getting her face fucked for half an hour - so it goes.



Roselaure -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 12:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros


Of course, as a liberal myself, I have to deal with the backlash from liberal feminists who cannot fathom why any woman would enjoy wearing a leash and getting her face fucked for half an hour - so it goes.



Wow.  I am a liberal feminist and that's one of my favorite activities. 



FirmhandKY -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 2:06:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Never heard of "scare quotes" however.




Neat.  Have always used them appropriately, but never used the name.

Isn't a name used in my Strunk and White manual, I don't think.

This usage:

They may indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's, for example if a term (particularly a controversial term)

... is generally why I do it with the terms "left" and "right", "liberal" and "conservative" and such.  Because, as this thread has shown, the issues and definitions are actually poorly understand, and tend to carry a lot of baggage and definitions that I don't think are accurate, nor agree with.

Firm



SensibleSam -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 2:27:51 PM)

Defining someone as a BDSMer is pretty straightforward and not very controversial. A taste for whipping women seems to be a clear enough criteria as to whether you are or are not a male Dominant,  It does not rely only on your own subjective testimony or your own private definitions. If I notice that you spend almost every one of your sexual episodes whipping a woman, I will classify you as a Dominant. So will just about everyone else.

Political classification is much more ambiguous. Indeed the term conservative is often used in wildly different ways. For example, some fundamentalist Christians define themselves as conservatives. Yet activist atheists like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are also considered conservatives. This is relevant because many Christians see BDSM as unholy. Of course there are some devout Christains who also embrace BDSM. Go figure.

Partly conservatism is confounded with adherance to the Republican Party. This is possibly relevant to BDSM because historically the Republican Party was founded on opposition to slavery. So one might expect Republicans to oppose BDSM because it celebrates a form of slavery. Actually I don't think this historical connection is very important today. Suppression of the blacks used to be strongly associated with the Democratic Party. Today all that history has gone down the memory hole.

The political dimension of liberal-conservative exists independent of the party system. The parties were created to exploit that dimension as much as to define it. That dimension is also called collectivest-individualist or authoritarian-libertarian by right wingers. It is characterized as progressive-reactionary by left wingers.

For about a century being an American liberal has often meant belief in some variety of Marxist-Leninism. In mainstream economics Marx has been thouroughly discredited but his influence remains in political science curricula and popular imaginings. Just as Freudian aphorisms still haunt popular speech and Hollywood scripts, Marxist ideas linger in political propaganda. For example, Marxism is a form of historicism, meaning that the future can be known to lead inevitably to communist or socialist states.  This is what leftists mean when they characterize themselves as progressives. Historicism itself has about the same intelectual pedigree as perpetual motion. 

David Riccardo holds a similar position to that of Marx in many conservative's rhetoric but few seem to appreciate the connection. The doctrine of comparitive advantage is rather more tricky to understand than is the idea of exploitation and profit mongering.

I don't know Marx's views on BDSM but I rather suspect he was against it.

An important role of a political party is as an advocate for specific interest groups. Trial lawyers are served by the Democrats. Using tort courts as a way to resolve disputes has advantages and disadvantages for society as a whole. Democrats can be counted on to favor the lawyers who provide them with contributions. This is not corruption, it is representation. Republicans favor insurance companies.  Warren Beatty made a film recently that portrayed insurance companies as conspirators and assasains. You have to be particularly benighted to conjure up an insurance company executive as the bogey man.

BDSMs don't contribute, as far as I know, to either party. The Christian dominated Republicans would probably refuse contributions from kinksters. The Democrats might also. The best bet would be the Libertarians.

A lot of liberals are convinced that the best hope for popular acceptance of BDSM is in big government regulation. Historically this seems a dicey proposition. Unfavored groups are persecuted by governments. The Nazis had the Jews. The Soviets had the kulaks. etc..

Henry Ford was an anti-Semite but he was no danger to Jews though his car company per se. It was only through a government program that any Jew had to worry. Similarly if the government became interested in BDSM I would start to get worried. It could be that the government would be a force for tolerance and acceptance but I don't think so.

I guess that makes me a conservative. So be it. 




DomDolf -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 2:47:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne


I agree. Dolf, if you haven't already check out the Offtopic discussions, you can definitely add to the fray over there.

You mention your views on gay marriage and I respect that you don't feel the need to explain them, fair enough. I am always confused tho when someone says that gays should have all of the same rights except the actual marriage. I have heard the same arguments that it is for religious reasons, or for reason of child rearing. Both of those bear no weight with me being childless by choice and a secular humanist. Well actually they would not hold weight barring those circumstances either. Hopefully someday this country will evolve enough to allow two consenting adults to participate legally and fully in the marriage process.  As a straight heterosexual woman I certainly don't  think that allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry will somehow effect my marital status, or anyone else's.




I have been to the Off Topic discussions and I have made input... lively characters there... lol

I suppose my problem is with the word marriage. Marriage signifies religious ceremony for many of us that have religious beliefs. The actual definition can mean civil, institutional or religious and does not say that there must be religious ceremony to it. So, maybe the problem for many is with the word and how deeply engrained it's meaning is to us.

Some are extremists and have problems with anything they don't agree with. I am a middle of the road kind of guy that leans more toward conservative views IN GENERAL. My sexual thoughts and feelings lean more to wards liberal views. If I could vote in the primaries with an independent card I would. Seems to me a lot of folks get hung up on the titles and words without regard to the specific opinions on specific topics. Just because my tilt is to wards the conservative over-all does not mean I disagree with all liberal views. What I dislike in almost any conversation is extreme views. There cannot be constructive debate with people at the extremes. whether it is extreme left or right it is ignorant and closed minded.

Dolf



missturbation -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 3:52:02 PM)

Omg, i sent the op a very polite cmail and he replied quite curtly and blocked me. [:(][:(]
I'm offended i tell ya lol



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 4:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomDolf

I have been to the Off Topic discussions and I have made input... lively characters there... lol

I suppose my problem is with the word marriage. Marriage signifies religious ceremony for many of us that have religious beliefs. The actual definition can mean civil, institutional or religious and does not say that there must be religious ceremony to it. So, maybe the problem for many is with the word and how deeply engrained it's meaning is to us.


Dolf


I don't know how this would go over, but (and remember -- I consider myself a Libertarian who leans heavily towards chaos and anarchy) I think the government should get out of the whole 'marriage' game completely.

Individuals who want to combine households should either be able to go to their church for a marriage in their religion, or should be able to enter into a contract of cohabitation written up on their own, spelling out the terms of their cohabitation, and setting a concrete initial term and renewal option. Individuals who marry in a religious ceremony are bound by the terms of that religion's rules in terms of how the contract is settled and whether or not it is ended, and if so, how. Children would be considered the fiscal responsibility of the adults in the marriage, just as if the families had privately contracted (that's coming up).

Those entering cohabitation agreements would file their agreement at City Hall for safe-keeping and 3rd party validation, but the State would have no say in whether they -could- join.. only that they -had-, in fact, contracted to start a household. Children born while the cohabitation agreement was in place would be the fiscal responsibility of any adult who was contracted to the household when that child was born, and would continue to be fiscally responsible until that child reached adulthood, regardless of whose sperm or eggs generated the offspring. Children adopted into a household would be fiscally cared for under the same terms, with responsibility falling on the adults who were present in the household at the time that the adoption was initiated.

Separation from an existing secular cohabitation agreement would happen automatically at the end of the contract term, or the contract could be renewed for set periods of time. Regular renewal would offer the opportunity to both evaluate the health of the relationship, and provide a designated commitment time that the household could count on. Each household could set its own terms for adding people to the household. Contracts could be set aside, but canceling a contract without cause would be expensive. Finances would not be "blended" in any case -- each individual's financial picture would be independent, and responsibility for financial health would be based on individual fiscal decisions -- no more having one person screw up someone else's finances just because they got married. The only inexpensive (in fact, -free-) cancellation of a contract would happen in cases of abuse. Unfortunately, in order to prevent abuse of this 'free out', abuse would have to be documented... a visit to a social worker, hospital, religious person, etc. detailing what was happening, and subsequent pressing of charges (either civil or criminal) against the abuser would have to be part of the free dissolution of the contract.

Those for whom marriage was a sacred word would get to keep their word -- everyone else, regardless of gender, number, race, color, creed, etc., would create their own families as they saw fit. The government would neither sanction nor penalize any family structure, as long as offspring existing in that family were cared for according to the fiscal responsibility agreements.

So easy -- but would it ever happen... the Government getting its fingers out of the marriage pie... 'sheah, NOT!

Calla Firestorm





hardbodysub -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 5:48:20 PM)

quote:

You have to be particularly benighted to conjure up an insurance company executive as the bogey man.


I think you have to be particularly benighted to NOT understand the rationale of an insurance company executive as the bogey man.



KnightofMists -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/2/2008 6:17:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submisty323

no offense to you, but that is very naive thinking, I don't think u fully understand what a "conservative" point is


Well.... obviously his personal experiences do not include a deeper understanding of the conservative point of view.  That is the problem with disciminating based on personal experiences alone.... It limits one into their own narrow world... 



SensibleSam -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 10:00:12 AM)

quote:

I think you have to be particularly benighted to NOT understand the rationale of an insurance company executive as the bogey man.


Maybe you know something I don't. The idea of insurance company executives as a band of assassins struck me as similar to the invasion of bunny rabbits in the horror classic The Night of the Lepus.



AtlantisKing111 -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 6:39:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub

quote:

So Marxists who impose their 'official' culture of state-run welfare, confiscatory taxes, abolition of private property and denial of their citizen's right to be able to defend themselves are Conservative?
- AtlantisKing111


Yes. Believe it or not, this is true. "Conservatives" in the USSR, were exactly so, committed to preserve the "establishment", to maintain the positions of those in power. The definition of "conservative" in post-revolutionary China is the same. Conservatives in a communist state are the same as in a democratic republic in that they don't want anything to change. The only difference is the form of government that they're trying to preserve.




Exactly my point.  His definition of Conservatism is a mite lacking in exactness if he thinks Liberals are not about having an official culture.



AtlantisKing111 -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 6:51:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

I'm afraid I agree with the OP in principle: your politics are your business, but conservative BDSMr's/Gays/etc. are a lot like vanilla women - they marry a guy thinking they'll be able to change him later - some things never change.


Hmmm.  As a Conservative BDSM'er I've never felt the inclination to change any of my plaything's political views.  To each their own I say.  As long as people respect my right to my opinions I respect their right to theirs.  It's when they start telling me my beliefs are evil or that I am evil that I draw the line. 

As the guy said in the movie 300, "'There's no reason we can't be civil is there?"



hardbodysub -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 8:44:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SensibleSam

quote:

I think you have to be particularly benighted to NOT understand the rationale of an insurance company executive as the bogey man.


Maybe you know something I don't. The idea of insurance company executives as a band of assassins struck me as similar to the invasion of bunny rabbits in the horror classic The Night of the Lepus.


Hey, rabbits can be vicious! Don't you remember the harrowing rabbit attacks on Jimmy Carter and Monty Python?



Owner4SexSlave -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 8:54:40 PM)

First and foremost, I personally view the Far left and Far right  as one in the same.

I think people get more caught up in being a Democrate or Repulician or whatever, and stop looking at the individual issues.

I'm an Independent, there are views from both sides that I embrace, and well.. since there's not party I can humanly align myself with fully, I will remain independent.



Leatherist -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/3/2008 8:57:19 PM)

I'm the most horrible of political creatures-the practical moderate.

I will vote for whoever I feel will actually follow through with th ebest solutions to issues-rather than just spout ridiculous rhetoric to squirm into office,and then allow themselves to be assimilated by "business as usual."

I don;t want the old status quo-I want fuckers who are parasitizing us to have thier heads cut off-starting with the lower one-and working up.



Aynne -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/4/2008 4:47:14 AM)

lol misst. I have noticed that it is the big bad boys that do that more oft than not. "booo!" Silly scared-y boys, afraid of us mean girls. [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

Omg, i sent the op a very polite cmail and he replied quite curtly and blocked me. [:(][:(]
I'm offended i tell ya lol



thishereboi -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/4/2008 4:57:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomDolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne


I agree. Dolf, if you haven't already check out the Offtopic discussions, you can definitely add to the fray over there.

You mention your views on gay marriage and I respect that you don't feel the need to explain them, fair enough. I am always confused tho when someone says that gays should have all of the same rights except the actual marriage. I have heard the same arguments that it is for religious reasons, or for reason of child rearing. Both of those bear no weight with me being childless by choice and a secular humanist. Well actually they would not hold weight barring those circumstances either. Hopefully someday this country will evolve enough to allow two consenting adults to participate legally and fully in the marriage process.  As a straight heterosexual woman I certainly don't  think that allowing gays and lesbians the right to marry will somehow effect my marital status, or anyone else's.




I have been to the Off Topic discussions and I have made input... lively characters there... lol

I suppose my problem is with the word marriage. Marriage signifies religious ceremony for many of us that have religious beliefs. The actual definition can mean civil, institutional or religious and does not say that there must be religious ceremony to it. So, maybe the problem for many is with the word and how deeply engrained it's meaning is to us.
Did you know, that I can go down to my local gay church and have a minister marry me and my girl friend? Married in the eyes of God, not legal, but a marriage none the less. To me that is much more important in a committed relationship that just getting the tax breaks.


Some are extremists and have problems with anything they don't agree with. I am a middle of the road kind of guy that leans more toward conservative views IN GENERAL. My sexual thoughts and feelings lean more to wards liberal views. If I could vote in the primaries with an independent card I would. Seems to me a lot of folks get hung up on the titles and words without regard to the specific opinions on specific topics. Just because my tilt is to wards the conservative over-all does not mean I disagree with all liberal views. What I dislike in almost any conversation is extreme views. There cannot be constructive debate with people at the extremes. whether it is extreme left or right it is ignorant and closed minded.

Dolf



softness -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/4/2008 8:47:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Augustone

I'm not going to pretend to be tolerant. I'm not. I won't.

I discriminate based on my experience of the world. The decision to do so is no different than deciding to discriminate aesthetically.

To the point:

Either I've not paid enough attention before or there are simply more submissives who describe their politics as 'conservative' than I recall. Those submissives (I've seen too many lately) that describe themselves as conservative usually stipulate that they want a conservative Dom.

I don't recall the scenes where I was introduced to BDSM practice ( I loathe the term lifestyle) having anyone willing to identify as conservative.

Let me be blunt. The politically conservative are inextricably affiliated with 'official' culture. Official culture is imposed culture. BDSM, arising spontaneously from need, is authentic unofficial culture.

Never the twain shall meet.

It frankly turns my stomach to think of milk (conservatives) and blood (BDSM) mixing.





fast reply .... through gritted teeth

this was worse than I had been warned ...Darcy ... dark ... you guys weren't kidding huh?

to the OP ... buy a book called Political Philosophy The Basics ... the type is fairly large and they only use long words when they have to.

carefully read the whole thing .. especially the bit about Conservatism, Libertarianism and personal freedom ... take a deep breath ... read it again. ... have a little think ... and read it again lather rinse repeat.

*return to her sewing* ... yanno .. this was probably why DV forced me to start voting Labour ... my Conservative politics was getting milk in His blood.



Amaros -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/4/2008 9:50:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SensibleSam

For about a century being an American liberal has often meant belief in some variety of Marxist-Leninism. In mainstream economics Marx has been thouroughly discredited but his influence remains in political science curricula and popular imaginings. Just as Freudian aphorisms still haunt popular speech and Hollywood scripts, Marxist ideas linger in political propaganda. For example, Marxism is a form of historicism, meaning that the future can be known to lead inevitably to communist or socialist states.  This is what leftists mean when they characterize themselves as progressives. Historicism itself has about the same intelectual pedigree as perpetual motion. 

Bullshit. Reframing is a form of propaganda.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SensibleSam
David Riccardo holds a similar position to that of Marx in many conservative's rhetoric but few seem to appreciate the connection. The doctrine of comparitive advantage is rather more tricky to understand than is the idea of exploitation and profit mongering.

An important role of a political party is as an advocate for specific interest groups. Trial lawyers are served by the Democrats. Using tort courts as a way to resolve disputes has advantages and disadvantages for society as a whole. Democrats can be counted on to favor the lawyers who provide them with contributions. This is not corruption, it is representation. Republicans favor insurance companies.  Warren Beatty made a film recently that portrayed insurance companies as conspirators and assasains. You have to be particularly benighted to conjure up an insurance company executive as the bogey man.

Bullshit.
quote:

ORIGINAL: SensibleSam
A lot of liberals are convinced that the best hope for popular acceptance of BDSM is in big government regulation. Historically this seems a dicey proposition. Unfavored groups are persecuted by governments. The Nazis had the Jews. The Soviets had the kulaks. etc..

Bullshit. Where do you get this stuff? The legal system is "big government regulation"? It was SCOTUS that interpreted the Constitutional right to privacy to include unpopular but consensual sexual acts - which by extension covers most BDSM practices. The reaction of the right was immediate and predictable, a reactionary attack on rule of law and a demand for special rights for Christians to regulate the sexual behavior of others - currently the same media machinery is mobilized to attack the California civil union law.

I think it would be more accurate to say that modern activist right wing is singularly hostile to the Anglo-Saxon legal system and rule of law and science in general, favoring "common sense", which sounds nice, but tends to be rather arbitrary, mostly meaning "what we want", "we" being "people that matter", i.e., right wingers, rather than all those pinko commie liberal parasites, gays, and sexual deviants, which I suppose is the point.

There are many sensible libertarians on the right, but also Christian identity and Christian reconstructionists, Randists, etc. - hell the Neo-cons are almost to man all former Trotskyists, speaking of Communism, and like it or not, these people are the very public face of conservatism. Sure, we've got a few unreformed Berkley Proffessors here and  there who shoot their mouths off now and again, but they are hardly representitive of the progressive mainstream.

I'd be happy to go into all of this with you in the off topic forum where it belongs, if you like, but conservative "commentators" such as yourself should remember that you don't define progressivism, progressives do, you can only define conservatism, through your actions, and such actions are no less subject to scrutiny, regardless of whatever ideological spin you want to try to put on it.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.882813E-02