RE: Communication does not create "Community" (Full Version)

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



Message


leadership527 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:12:29 PM)

Well, then I'd be one of those people who "don't belong here" BoiJen. And no, I don't think you're elitist. I think that you and any group of people are allowed to draw the boundaries around your social groups however you want. As is always true with such things, there is a give and take involved. Diversity brings new thoughts, new ideas, new ways of looking at problems. On the other hand, too much diversity and one risks losing what sense of community may exist into a vast sea of "stuff".

And to tell you the truth, I agree. For me at least, my involvement with the BDSM community, such as it is, is only a partial overlap. We share in common the interest in extreme authority structures. But for me, that interest is not sexually linked nor does it come along with a wide variety of other kinks. That being said, I DO find value here in those areas where the interests coincide. Some of the things people say here have been very useful to me. I count a few of the folks on these boards as role models... at least in the parts of their lives that I have interest in. Allegedly, at least some others find value in the things I say. So I hang around.

Now let's talk arrogant rather than elitist. It is arrogant to presume that I either need or want you to honor me by protecting me from your own little black hole. It is arrogant to presume upon the choices of others. It is arrogant to pull the "BoiJen knows best" routine. It's also just a bit stupid seeing as I'm twice your age. And while we're at it, here's another arrogant thing... to presume that what "we" do is so special or unique or whatever that it is "not" for everybody. Here's a little safety tip for you. I know for a fact that what *I* do is not for an awful lot of folks in the BDSM community... too extreme. I'd venture to say that an awful lot of people in all walks of life do an awful lot of things that work for them but are "not for everybody". That, however, does not mean there isn't common ground and the useful interchange of ideas.

And while I'm on the topic of arrogance, let's not forget how arrogant it is for you to presume upon others that very definitely ARE in your own community. I've received some very nice, very encourage, and very welcoming messages from a variety of folks that to the best of my understanding very much ARE a part of the leather community. These people apparently do not feel that I am somehow devaluing WIITTD with my ideas... foreign as they may be sometimes. My speculation is that this is because, like me, they are secure enough in their own selves to be able to stretch beyond their own private view of things and find value wherever it may be found.

~Jeff
The vanilla guy who likes to own his wife




BoiJen -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:26:26 PM)

I'm sorry...what's my age got to do with this?I mean in a real way...not in a "this is the only way I can find to validate my own arguments" way. If my age has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just like your age has nothing to do with the topic at hand, why bring it up?

Picking on the personal pet peeve before being ordered to bed.

boi




ResidentSadist -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:29:01 PM)

There are about a thousand things I haven't said. This is boi's thread and I enjoy watching my fellow Floridian at work. [:)]
/switch - <lurking mode>




domiguy -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:31:11 PM)

I do like boi. she is a smart, twisted, dirty and adorable kind of a thang. ~ Ms Kitty




BoiJen -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:35:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

There are about a thousand things I haven't said. This is boi's thread and I enjoy watching my fellow Floridian at work. [:)]
/switch - <lurking mode>



And damnit! Florida has come a good God damn far way in the last 6 years hasn't it?

Now, I'm in trouble...

boi




leadership527 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 7:59:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen
I'm sorry...what's my age got to do with this?I mean in a real way...not in a "this is the only way I can find to validate my own arguments" way. If my age has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just like your age has nothing to do with the topic at hand, why bring it up?
Whether or not it is your pet peeve does not change how foolish it is to offer to save someone twice your age from their own folly.

If you were to search back in all my posts EVER on collarme, I doubt you'd find another reference to age anywhere. And that, in and of itself, ought to clue you in.




ResidentSadist -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 8:06:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist

There are about a thousand things I haven't said. This is boi's thread and I enjoy watching my fellow Floridian at work. [:)]
/switch - <lurking mode>



And damnit! Florida has come a good God damn far way in the last 6 years hasn't it?

Now, I'm in trouble...

boi

I agree. Florida has some awesome people in our alt lifestyle communities. . . and we overflow with all variations of kink, straight, gay, swinger, nudists, rainmakers, leather and etc. Florida is called “the capital of kink” for a good reason.

Much of what I have not written or posted addresses your OP and how it was about the word commune. . . in which all variations of definition include the word “intimate”. Computers, electronic communication and online communities are not intimate even if you are on cam in the middle of circle jerk . . . you are still insulated, isolated and retain anonymity. I admit reducing two words to their Latin roots to make a snazzy slogan is mostly a good speech writing trick to inspire community spirit at a convention. However, the point is still undeniably valid.




PeonForHer -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 8:20:30 PM)

Jen,

A few years ago I listened to a guy presenting a paper on the word - and the idea of - 'community'. He was doing his Ph.D - in political science - on that subject. The gist of it was this: that 'community' has become a powerful buzzword very, very rapidly in the last decade. At bottom, he said, this was due to the passing out of favour of cherished ideas of both left and right wings in the political spectrum. The Left can no longer talk about 'social classes' in society, because we've now got to the stage where such talk is trashed as old time, defunct ideology that should have evaporated along with the old USSR. The Right, however, can no longer assume that we will all get our rocks off at hearing lines like that of Margaret Thatcher's 'There is no society, there are only individuals and their families'. That focus on individuals, cut off from one another, seems cold and harsh these days.

At the same time, 'community' is a very serviceable word in politics because it's always been wonderfully vague. Politicians love, love, love words that sound warm and cuddly but which don't mean much. Nowadays, it tends to connote a bunch of chummy people who live together and turn up with chicken soup when one of said people is sick. It's a cosy, but more importantly, a fuzzy, word. It *could* imply a group of people who are as close-knit as a loving family - but the word doesn't jar even if applied to a collection of people who have only some shared quality or another but no group feeling whatsoever.

But it could be a dangerous word. 'Ein Volk', as Hitler used to say. There is 'our folk' - and there are 'others', who are on the outside, and who are not like us. The most dangerous thing of all is always to leave that 'community of people like us' - loose and undefined. I'm forever being told by neo-goosestepping twats that they and I share a 'Britishness' that isn't shared by . . . . people of different races, immigrants generally . . . it's never made clear. 'I'm part of the community, they're not', I'm told. I therefore get the chummy fuzziness - but they do not. Or, I will get the chummy fuzziness until said goosesteppers - if they ever have the power - decree that something I do (like being a kinkster, being a bit of an academic, not liking football, whatever) is 'un-British'.

Well, anyway, that's what this guy said in his paper. Me, the term does make me chuckle a bit. Private Eye, a satirical mag here in the UK, runs a column every issue that lampoons the word. It's become as ubiquitous as that word 'issue' (meaning 'problem'), and the word 'solution' for marketing men.








stella41b -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 8:26:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

I'm sorry...what's my age got to do with this?



It doesn't. We all make mistakes and that includes people who are much older.

While I don't share some of your opinions it doesn't make any of them less valid, nor does it take anything from the fact that you started this thread and brought this topic to the attention of others.

Okay, so some people may see the way you expressed your opinions as arrogance as is their right, I see it more as passion and fire and these are often two things which are necessary to bring things to people's attention.

These are issues which depend on people's individuality and right to express themselves and share their interests with others - anyone who advocates this through their opinions is right, even when those opinions differ.

If we cannot agree to differ and support each others' differing viewpoints as a community without becoming involved in personal conflicts then how can we learn and how can we ever hope to gain the acceptance from others in wider society?

Isn't this what it's all about at the end of the day?




Apocalypso -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/28/2010 8:33:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen
As an aside, did anyone who didn't know the names listed as part of the "fossil hour" panel research those individuals at all? Just asking if anyone attempted to gain an understanding of who these persons were/are and where they're coming from.


I was already familiar with about half the names mentioned.  I don't see it matters though.  When we're talking about matters of opinion, rather than fact, people's arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

quote:

What those quotes mean to me is that the veil of "inclusion" and this effort to be more "mainstream" is not what SM has ever been about.


While I think the leather community has a right to define who is and isn't leather,  trying to claim that the leather community gets to define what is and isn't SM is overstretching.  I don't like this whole 'inclusion' and 'mainstream' dogma any more than you do.  But you aren't going to get anywhere by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "not real SM" over and over.

quote:

Trying to call an internet forum a "Community" is the equivalent of trying to make SM a fluffy, fun-filled, watered down happy place


That might be the motive for some.  For me it's somewhat different.  If I had the gall to speak for the leather community, you'd rightly take issue with me.  And you don't speak for everyone else on this forum, let alone communities that exist elsewhere on the net.  And you especially don't speak for the old school netters.  To turn your first question back on you, have you read Gibson and Sterling?  Are you fluent in 1337?  How much do you know about transhumanist philosophy? Are you aware what the difference between a "white hat" and a "black hat" is?

To put it another way, the leather community isn't the only group where reputation is important.  And you simply don't have the credentials to speak for me on this issue, any more than I have the credentials to speak for the leather community.

quote:

for the rest of the world's social outcasts to feel comfortable here no matter if they really are compatible with the values (yes, they're sexually oriented) of the established community. Not honoring that some people really don't belong on the inside of this community is not honoring who that person is and allowing them to do something stupid like fall into a black hole they never really bargained for.


You're missing an important factor.  Not all of us actually want to be part of the leather community.  And you can't effectively exclude someone from a group they have no interest in joining.




lally2 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 12:53:07 AM)

ive just noticed [Community Discussions]

apparently CM identifies as a community after all.




leadership527 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 1:29:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stella41b
It doesn't. We all make mistakes and that includes people who are much older.
To be clear Stella, my age reference had to do with that one particular segment about saving me from myself. Yes, I put myself into the equation to put a personal face on things and yes, I happen to be twice bj's age. And sadly, in this one instance, I'm gonna get all age-ist here and say that it's pretty fucking stupid for a 23 year old to offer to save a 46 year old from the perils of their own folly. What? The big bad BDSM'ers are gonna scar me for life? Pulease.

quote:

Okay, so some people may see the way you expressed your opinions as arrogance as is their right, I see it more as passion and fire and these are often two things which are necessary to bring things to people's attention.

Again, to clarify, I do not see the idea that the leather community or any other community can and should set some boundaries on what's in and what's out as arrogant. In fact, I would call that more "needful and appropriate". I was pretty specific about where I saw the arrogance. I disagree that fire and passion have much value when they come out as demeaning slander. Passion is great when used positively. When used negatively, it gets a predictably strongly negative response.

quote:

If we cannot agree to differ and support each others' differing viewpoints as a community without becoming involved in personal conflicts then how can we learn and how can we ever hope to gain the acceptance from others in wider society?

This, I suspect, is a problem in ANY alternative grouping. The problem is that some of the participants are more into the alternativism of it than the actual thing. They don't WANT to find the points of commonality with the larger society. They don't want to build the bridges. They want to make themselves out as alien and different and that all important "extreme". All of which is fine by me... up to the point where they start asking for acceptance. I just don't think you get to say "fuck you all now love me". If someone wants to be a wild-child, deviant, extremist, non-conformist, whatever that's all fine. But don't expect everyone else to like it. They won't. Fundamentally, if some group insists on drawing the battle lines, then the "THEM" folks are going to be hostile... as they should be.




allthatjaz -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 1:31:33 AM)

If it wasn't for the internet we wouldn't have nearly so many people turning up at charitable events.
People make names for themselves within their own communities. I could reel off many UK men and womens names who have earned good reputation and popularity from the good they have brought not only to the scene but to HIV and other world wide charities. I can name people who have run huge none profit making events to aid awareness of the things we do and I can name people in the UK who have set up and still run very successful pier workshops, where people can come along and learn something new in the safety of knowledgeable hands without having to dip in their pockets. If I said their names then I'm pretty sure that most American BDSMers would never heard of them.
None of these things could of grown without the internet and without forum groups such as IC, Fetlife and so on.
Within the UK all of these people are known and respected. They all have groupies, people hanging off their name and following them wherever they go and a lot of those groupies are not so interesting in learning but trying to make a name for themselves by knowing these people. Theres nothing like saying 'ah yes I know so-and-so well'!! they feel it gives them credence.
Outside of the UK very few will of ever heard of these people because they are only well known within their own community. People on the streets of the UK wouldn't know or have any interest in these people because they don't know about our community and the good work that is done there by certain people.
Its the same in the US or any country for that matter. Advocates of that community are only advocates of that community. It rarely goes wider than that. Its a large amount of fame in a very small place.

One of those men comes on here on occasion. He uses forums to occasionally join in a discussion group. Apart from the few English people that add to the forums, nobody knows him. He's treated with as much disrespect as the next person. He comes here because not all of this has to be 'in the flesh' He doesn't lower himself to our level!!! he is our level as far as he's concerned and just like Caro has an online community so she can offer some help and advice, so does he.
I wonder if they do that because they want to get out to the wider audience!




BoiJen -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 4:20:40 AM)

Stella and Peon, I just wanted to thank you for your very stimulating responses. When I'm more functional, I'll respond right now I'm in receiver mode only.

boi




stella41b -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 8:27:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

This, I suspect, is a problem in ANY alternative grouping. The problem is that some of the participants are more into the alternativism of it than the actual thing. They don't WANT to find the points of commonality with the larger society. They don't want to build the bridges. They want to make themselves out as alien and different and that all important "extreme". All of which is fine by me... up to the point where they start asking for acceptance. I just don't think you get to say "fuck you all now love me". If someone wants to be a wild-child, deviant, extremist, non-conformist, whatever that's all fine. But don't expect everyone else to like it. They won't. Fundamentally, if some group insists on drawing the battle lines, then the "THEM" folks are going to be hostile... as they should be.



Well Jeff in a way this is true. But it's not the complete picture.

Back in 2006 whilst being homeless myself and being in a hostel I was subjected to constant daily harrassment from hostel staff simply for being transgendered and i stood up to the hostel manager and made a formal complaint of discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

I won. The homeless charity who ran the hostel, St Mungo's conducted an investigation and changed its policies, which in itself explains the somewhat iconic position I have among many members of the homeless community in London and it was an event which directly led to my setting up my own charity to work against social stigma.

St Mungo's is the oldest among the UK homeless charities and it supports other charities, for example Stonewall. As a result I was asked to work with Stonewall to add the 'T' to their LGB organization. This has been a request made on a number of occasions and each time Stonewall has refused. This is in itself somewhat ironic because if it wasn't for the drag queens, the activism of the transgendered community there would never have been a Stonewall in the first place.

I was then asked to set up a focus group in West London, supported by St Mungo's, the NHS and the local authorities which I agreed to. Now it's my personal belief that a very necessary component in the struggle for wider acceptance of the LGBT community is the BDSM community - which is arguably more diverse that the LGBT community for it involves many different people with every imaginable sexual orientation - and that wider acceptance can only be achieved with the active support of the heterosexual community. On a very personal level there are many gays, lesbians and transfolk who are supported emotionally by at least one person who is heterosexual, and therefore this change just requires a different perspective of looking at someone, i.e. overlooking their differences in sexual orientation but instead looking at them as another human being.

The LGBT community isn't a minority, nor is the BDSM community - both are too diverse and are made up of people across a wide spectrum found in society, the only minority are the people who persecute, harrass and harm other people simply because they are different. Take the Catholic Church for example. Those who are advocating hatred and persecution of people for being different are those who have the power, the Pope, the priests, and not necessarily the people who regard themselves as Catholics or who attend Mass.

And so I went out and gave talks, speeches and spoke to people outside the community, out in wider society. I visited hostels for the homeless, community associations, residents associations, political meetings, and have even met with mullahs in the Islamic community. Via another activist, an older lesbian who ran her own charity for the older LGBT community we were able to gain the support of other charities such as Age Concern (for the elderly) and MIND (for the mentally ill).

But yes there were divisions from within the group. Lesbians were divided over whether they wanted to mutually support bisexual women and transwomen, gay men had similar issues, and this in effect prevented me from reaching out to ethnic minorities. The LGBT staff association also didn't like the fact that heterosexuals were attending our meetings looking for information and help on how they could better support people who were close to them (family and friends) who were gay, lesbian or transgendered. This is what caused me to quit the group.

So yes I would agree that a minority prefer to be a minority and a persecuted minority. This is no different from wider society where some people choose to remain victims rather than make the effort to become survivors.

But this isn't just about being alternative. Please don't think that I am being motivated to form one big happy clappy society where everybody is accepted and we all get together to sing 'Kumbaya' round camp fires. This is also about basic human rights, the right to express oneself freely, the right to form happy, personal relationships freely, the right to be able to work freely, the right to be able to travel freely - basic human rights that the vast majority of heterosexuals take for granted.

I am a transgendered female, and I don't come here to be alternative, I come here to be me. If some people want to perceive me and the way I live as alternative then let them. They have a right to do so. If someone doesn't accept me for being transgendered then let them, for that is their right.

I am simply being me, and my work comes out of the Polish Solidarity movement. From the twenty eight people who sat down together with Lech Walesa in the Round Table talks with the former Polish 'communist' government I have had personal dealings with seven of them, including the late former President Lech Kaczynski. In fact it was he who when president of Warsaw blocked funding for my work to create a theatre of professional actors who also worked with the homeless, causing me to leave Warsaw.

Bear in mind it was the same people who supported my career in Poland who were instrumental also in my downfall in 2005. Bear in mind that I am also under heavy restrictions which prevent me from entering the United States put in place by the US authorities, and bear in mind that the UK government have also denied me welfare benefits for being transgendered. Trust me, this isn't about being alternative at all, this is purely about basic human rights. I have spent the last five years regaining all those rights and through this have decided to devote the rest of my life to working towards regaining these basic human rights for other people who have been denied them simply for being different.

There's a lesson in the Polish Solidarity movement that I personally feel we need to learn in the West. The success of the Polish Solidarity movement is of course those nine years spent in bringing everyone together for the same common objective - to achieve social change through non-violent activities and struggles. However the Polish Solidarity movement also failed, because it did nothing to end the oppression of the LGBT community nor did it help people at the very bottom of society and both today - 30 years after Solidarity was formed in Gdansk - have little opportunity to unite and share in the solidarity with other Poles but remain excluded.

The reason why I feel that this is a necessary lesson for people in the West is that very few of us actually want commonality with the rest of society - and I would even suggest that the vast majority of us would prefer the freedom to be able to express ourselves and live our lives being the individuals we are but still be free to enjoy basic human rights such as the right to live somewhere, the right to work or have some sort of an occupation and the right to form successful, happy relationships.

It's kind of interesting in that back in 1980 we could be forgiven for believing that we lived in a free, democratic society and feel sorry for those in Eastern Europe who were forced to live under a totalitarian regime. Kind of interesting to see that 30 years on the situation appears that it's been reversed and that, unlike many of the Eastern Europeans many of us are quite happy living under a totalitarian regime which has effectively removed many of the subcultures in favour of globalization and the illusion of a unified society which isn't very unified at all.

Yes there are people who have the freedom to choose to be alternative but there are many others who are deemed alternative by other people in society simply for being themselves, and who don't have that choice or freedom. They would love more than anything to be accepted by others in society just for being human beings - irrespective of what you think about their way of expressing themselves or their lifestyle - but instead of getting that acceptance they are getting hatred, hostility and exclusion.

And here is the point of the lesson. If we focus on the differences that separate us and try to resolve those differences we will never achieve solidarity. Each and every one of us is an individual and it is unrealistic to expect everyone to conform to a set social standard. Not only is it unrealistic, but it also undermines any effort spent in working towards the objective, which is solidarity.

We have to look beyond those differences, and beyond the people who believe that those differences are important. This is why political correctness failed - the focus of political correctness was on the differences. The differences have always existed ever since people existed and they will always exist for as long as there are people.

This is why I have spent time recently supporting a Glasgow priest who made homophobic statements to his congregation. I do not agree with the statements he made, I also don't agree with his decision to abuse his position as a priest to advocate social division and hatred, but then again I also disagree strongly with him being prosecuted for exercising his freedom of speech.

However I do believe that when we focus on the three things which we all share - that we are human, that we are individuals and that we all desire the freedom to be different and to live our lives as individuals - and when we respect that other people are different from us, then the objective of finding solidarity with others becomes very possible.




LadyPact -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 11:22:11 AM)

I know I owe you a note on the other side (things have been somewhat hectic this past week) but I really  wanted to address this comment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Well, then I'd be one of those people who "don't belong here" BoiJen. And no, I don't think you're elitist. I think that you and any group of people are allowed to draw the boundaries around your social groups however you want. As is always true with such things, there is a give and take involved. Diversity brings new thoughts, new ideas, new ways of looking at problems. On the other hand, too much diversity and one risks losing what sense of community may exist into a vast sea of "stuff".

I don't really think the original had anything to do with not belonging *here*.  *Here* meaning CM, the net, or any other related electronic communication, honestly isn't that big of a deal.  By all means, it is a wonderful benefit that we have and it's absolutely better than nothing, but it's not substance.

quote:

And to tell you the truth, I agree. For me at least, my involvement with the BDSM community, such as it is, is only a partial overlap. We share in common the interest in extreme authority structures. But for me, that interest is not sexually linked nor does it come along with a wide variety of other kinks. That being said, I DO find value here in those areas where the interests coincide. Some of the things people say here have been very useful to me. I count a few of the folks on these boards as role models... at least in the parts of their lives that I have interest in. Allegedly, at least some others find value in the things I say. So I hang around.

As you should.  That's the very purpose of the medium.  I find CM to be something of a catch all.  Something of a bucket where all the different drops of one kink or another are collected together. 

quote:

Now let's talk arrogant rather than elitist. It is arrogant to presume that I either need or want you to honor me by protecting me from your own little black hole. It is arrogant to presume upon the choices of others. It is arrogant to pull the "BoiJen knows best" routine. It's also just a bit stupid seeing as I'm twice your age. And while we're at it, here's another arrogant thing... to presume that what "we" do is so special or unique or whatever that it is "not" for everybody. Here's a little safety tip for you. I know for a fact that what *I* do is not for an awful lot of folks in the BDSM community... too extreme. I'd venture to say that an awful lot of people in all walks of life do an awful lot of things that work for them but are "not for everybody". That, however, does not mean there isn't common ground and the useful interchange of ideas.

And that's the exact truth of it.  I'd invite you to take a look around you.  While many people would be extremely happy and content to have the kind of love in their lives that you and Carol share, there would be a heck of a lot of folks who wouldn't be suited to the type of power structure that you have created.  That's exactly what makes it not for everybody, even though it's perfect for you.

By the same token, leather is not for everybody.  There are a good number of kinky folks out there who wouldn't fit if they lived their lives with a certain structure that was always present.  Many would be very unhappy living in a high protocol expectation that was always there.

quote:

And while I'm on the topic of arrogance, let's not forget how arrogant it is for you to presume upon others that very definitely ARE in your own community. I've received some very nice, very encourage, and very welcoming messages from a variety of folks that to the best of my understanding very much ARE a part of the leather community. These people apparently do not feel that I am somehow devaluing WIITTD with my ideas... foreign as they may be sometimes. My speculation is that this is because, like me, they are secure enough in their own selves to be able to stretch beyond their own private view of things and find value wherever it may be found.

~Jeff
The vanilla guy who likes to own his wife

Thinking of Me, perhaps?  LOL.

It may be My own personal interpretation, but I do want to express My thoughts on this.  Quite often, I've read these boards and got the distinct impression that leather folks aren't especially welcome here.  Yes, we are different than other BDSM folks and yes, we have different ways of doing things.  Even on a thread like this one, where some of us say that our community isn't here, but lies somewhere else, isn't especially accepted.  Let Me start a thread next month about earning leather and watch the fur fly.  It would be the electronic version of a slaughter and I can promise you it would be My carcass.

I tend to think that the view on the subject is often very slanted.  I'm genuinely happy for other folks who have found ways different than My own that work for them.  When it's the other way around, I don't think that happens so much.

My best to Carol.




leadership527 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 11:34:33 AM)

Just a note up front. This particular sub-thread here is in relation to post #73 and beyond. The original thread was a fairly sterile semantic discussion about the word "community". As was pointed out by apocalypso (I think) This word is vague, at best and so well suited to endless debates. Like some others, I just opt out of the word as being meaningful to me.

-------------------------------

Wow stella... a very eloquent way to put it and yes, I agree... the bigger picture. In the past, I've conceptualized it in this way.

There will always be those people who focus on the differences and other people who focus on the commonalities. Some people want to build walls and others want to build bridges.

Sadly, I think the bridge builders are always going to be a significant minority. It takes a fair degree of security in your own self to embrace diversity and not feel threatened by it. I'm a hetero male. But I do not feel that the gay/lesbian people "threaten my family values". My family values are mine and only Carol and myself can threaten them. ALL of my life belongs only to myself and to Carol. Other people with different views only offer up different views. It is still mine to choose which of those different views I will adopt into my life and which I will reject. If I choose wisely, then these people become a resource to be mined for good additions to my own reality. In this same way, I would argue that if the LC feels it's community values are being threatened, then they ought to be looking a bit closer to home for the reasons.

If, however, I was less secure in myself than I am, then the gay family moving in next door becomes a threat. Just imagine the horror! Why, they might convince others of my neighbors that it's OK to be gay. Heck... if that goes unchecked, this might become a gay friendly community and I might be surrounded by gay couples and their sympathizers! I'd be outnumbered -- the minority! Fundamentally, this is a mindset driven by insecurity and fear. And sadly, way too many of the masses are more motivated by insecurity and fear than they are strength and love. Strength.... real strength... is a precious and all too rare commodity. Most people just plain don't have the internal strength to build those bridges and the walls are way easier. Also, on a more pragmatic level, it's just plain way easier and more convenient all around to blame THEM for whatever ails us in our own lives.

In this light, BoiJen's post is no different than the Christian right talking about saving traditional family values. I can see the banners now... "Save traditional kink values!" It is the idea that the mere existence of an alternate viewpoint is dangerous and must be shunned or, in the extreme case, expunged. If the folks she was extolling actually existed as a part of societal majority rather than a minority, they would be down right scary.

And just as an interesting technical aside. It was my understanding that, insofar as "traditional leather values" actually existed (largely mythical as another posted noted), we're talking about "old guard" stuff here. Wasn't "old guard" almost exclusively gay men?




subtee -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 12:10:25 PM)

Jeff, your gay neighbors would TURN YOU GAY. You'd become tidy and limp-wristed. You'd watch HGTV and do your Mother's hair. You'd have coral-painted toenails and wear tank tops to garden. You'd fervently wish you could be a "Real Housewife," while outwardly and shrilly making catty comments about "those drama whore bitches." You would live to dance, Jeff. Live to.

It's a cautionary tale I'm telling. It happens far too often. [:(]





leadership527 -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 12:14:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Thinking of Me, perhaps? LOL.

Yup, I was -- among others. And gosh, I was kind of hoping I'd be able to visit you sometime. I am scheming a trip down to visit Mercnbeth.... But sheez, now that I understand I'm a walking, breathing threat to your kinky, deviant values perhaps I shouldn't? *laughs*

For me, at least, this thread changed tones dramatically. In the beginning, it was a debate about community... a meaningless semantic debate since even sociologists cannot agree on what that term means. You'll note I "opted out" of that one. Later, however, this became a discussion on the relative value of isolationism vs. diversity with some pretty nasty mud slinging.

quote:

It may be My own personal interpretation, but I do want to express My thoughts on this.  Quite often, I've read these boards and got the distinct impression that leather folks aren't especially welcome here.
I agree. And both you and I are also members of another shunned minority in the way we view TPE. There are other such sub-groups which are equally maligned. For instance, I wouldn't want to be a top or bottom on these boards.

quote:

Yes, we are different than other BDSM folks and yes, we have different ways of doing things.  Even on a thread like this one, where some of us say that our community isn't here, but lies somewhere else, isn't especially accepted.

That's not what was said. I doubt anyone at all would've argued with the statement, "The leather community needs to find it's sense of community out in the real world." I sure as heck wouldn't. I'd have ignored the post and moved on as not relevant to me (not being a member of the leather community). What ACTUALLY happened was BoiJen trying to redefine what the word community meant and in so doing, disenfranchised a whole bunch of people who saw it differently. Perhaps it was sloppy wording but her words and yours don't even remotely align.

quote:

Let Me start a thread next month about earning leather and watch the fur fly.  It would be the electronic version of a slaughter and I can promise you it would be My carcass.
Again, agreed and I hope I've been pretty clear that the leather community CAN and SHOULD define what standards they feel are necessary. This thread changed in tenor entirely as of post #73. At that point, it became about SM and a general fear mongering stance. I don't agree BoiJen speaks for SM and I don't agree with fear-mongering and isolationism in general.

quote:

I tend to think that the view on the subject is often very slanted. I'm genuinely happy for other folks who have found ways different than My own that work for them. When it's the other way around, I don't think that happens so much.
See Stella's very eloquent post. What you are wishing is that other people were as secure in themselves as you are. I wish that too. It isn't going to be true... ever.

PS: Oh, and for the record, if we do get down to visit, I'm not particularly worried about you and clip threatening my family values -- I'm actually kind of hoping you are going to enrich them and who knows, you two might even corrupt us a bit... perish the thought *laughs*




BoiJen -> RE: Communication does not create "Community" (4/29/2010 12:22:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

And just as an interesting technical aside. It was my understanding that, insofar as "traditional leather values" actually existed (largely mythical as another posted noted), we're talking about "old guard" stuff here. Wasn't "old guard" almost exclusively gay men?


I am only addressing this point because I have been awake for a total of ten minutes today. Head colds suck ass.

"Old Guard", God damnit, was/is a social term that has been around for a very long time. It has nothing to with specifically being "Leather". "Old Guard" in terms of "Leather" was first used by Andy Mangles (God love him) in 1989 in a Drummer editorial piece known as "Rough stuff". Andy was referring to the social connotations of the term "old guard" meaning "those resistant to change". "Old guard" means "guarding the old stuff". It does not mean some mythical set of traditions and rules and values codes held by one group of people in time.

The story behind it is that Andy went into a bar to interview some Leather men and he, in his twenties, called himself a "Master". The guys he was talking to began to berate him and ask him how on Earth he could be a "master" when he was a twenty nothing "punk" showing up in their bar?! Andy then wrote the piece "Rough Stuff" using a socially accepted term for "resistant to change" and some jack ass on a website called Castle Realm (where the term "Old Guard" first appeared in literature to mean a mythical group of people) ran with it. Since then, some people have grouped others into social groups like "New Guard", "Avante Guarde", and some other shit.

The individuals thought of as "Old Guard" today were not exclusively gay men, but mostly were. There were a few straight men, not many. There were a few women, both lesbian and straight, though of those there, they were mostly straight. The reason for women specifically showing up in the bars in New York in the 1950', 1960's, and 1970's has more to do with New York legal code making it illegal for men to gather and dance in any given establishment. The Mob (yes, the real Gangsters) actually owned a great deal of the gay bars in New York for a very long time because they were the only ones with enough money to pay off the cops and DA's so that the establishments could stay open. If the patrons of the bar allowed women to have a small corner to themselves and the cops decided to break their deal with the Mob, then the patrons could legitimately say "there's our beards! Look women!"

There's a lot more to this history, some of it is new information to me but Caro's "Leather Generations" class is where the hand out, with citations and references, was given. If you'd like a copy of the hand out, please feel free to contact her on FetLife and she'll be happy to send you a copy of the handout with the time-line and relevant information.

I only attended two classes this weekend with my vending being a fabulous hit (I sold every damned piece I brought with me) but I chose to only attend the two classes referencing relevant Leather history because that's what important to me. Just like the rope guys went to the rope classes because that's what important to them. The Leather Generations class was one of the most well attended at 45 people and that's with 10 standing.

Going back to bed,

boi




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.063477