From: mlloyd@ocf.berkeley.edu (M. Lloyd)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Vikki's Problems With Kerry&Me
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:38:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: earthquake.berkeley.edu

I'm just picking up a part of this topic; I'm also responding to a
question which wasn't asked of me, but naturally my response is purely
my own - I'm not speaking for anyone else.

rsr@soda.berkeley.edu (Roy S. Rapoport) writes:
>->Now in case you all think I'm totally against BDSM, I'm not ( Ithink[sic]).
>
>OK ... think about it.  Do you have a problem with BDSM?
>What about heterosexual BDSM?
>What about heterosexual BDSM when the female is on the bottom?

[Waves hand in air] I have a problem with that last one.  Not an
insurmountable problem, but it's there.  I like some SM (I'm of the
opinion that I won't get much out of BD, but haven't really tried).  I
like some het SM.  But I get very, very cagey with female-bottom het
BDSM.

I've still *done* it - in fact, the first two people I went non-vanilla
with were female, and in both cases I was doing at least half of the
inflicting.  By default, though, I have more than my usual set of
reservations when the situation of man-topping-woman arises.  It's not
wrong - such moralistic simplifications are worse than useless.  I just
want to be that bit much more sure that I'm not doing anything which
reinforces the things I hate the most.  Maybe this is less than you
meant by "problem" - I suspect it is.  I wanted to raise the point
anyway.

To be specific, I imagine that I would not consent to het BDSM for
display to any unknown audience.  It's clear from my actions that I
think two individuals can get into these overtone-thick interactions
without harm, but that relies on my judgement of the position and the
people.  Were it possible that my topping of a woman, say, could be
interpreted (however unconsciously) by an audience as support for
codified oppression of women by men, I would not do it.  My choice.

>It's people like you who are anti-porn, anti-prostitution,
>anti-exotic-dancing.

I don't want to contradict that (again, if you're not following this
thread carefully, it wasn't aimed at me anyway).  I just want to make
the tangential point that there are other bases for being anti-porn, and
further that these bases need not be anti-prostitution, etc.  

I was pro-Dworkin/MacKinnon.  I'd now call myself sympathetic to their
views, and still puzzling over the best stance.  (For anyone unsure,
these people are anti-porn campaigners who have had some success with
pushing legislation through, and it's of a type which I find highly
unconventional and potentially beneficial.)  Perhaps we shouldn't debate
this right at this moment, or in this forum; I'm just adding a facet to
the picture.  You, Roy, didn't say anything directly contradictory to
this; I am just making the point that there are reasons other than
prudery and/or misplaced feminism for being anti-porn.

Now, a third point; this is unrelated, and is more meta-discussion of
soc.bi than bi (or sex and gender) related material.  I also feel a bit
unfair picking out this next quote (which I've re-ordered to the end to
downplay the significance of my point).  Perhaps I should start another
thread for this - I suggest any reponders do change the Subject: field. 

>To speak on a more personal level, I suffer from some deep self-esteem
>problems, due to how I was brought up, and due to some events during my
>growing up.  Most of the time I keep these problems _very_ under control,
>and very deep within myself, very hidden.  But they do exist.  

I wouldn't bet on the "very hidden" part if I were you.  This is *not* a
personal flame; I just want to observe that I am still amazed at the
extent to which email can convey personality to a careful reader.  One
need only look at the number of net-related relationships generated (and
I don't mean via alt.personals) for some anecdotal evidence of this.
It's my HO that people project more of themselves than they think they
do, in the main.  No assesment of character on the basis of e-stuff is
iron-clad; some people deliberately mislead, and no-one has perfect
sensitivity either.  Still, you get some large portion of the kind of
insight into someone from email/posts as you get from sitting with that
person in a pub, conversing.  Extend that over time, and it's quite
startling to consider how well you can get to know someone you've never
met.  There is always a difference, a missing piece, but never
underestimate how readable the gaps between characters are in this
medium.  (Shades of the I Am Not A White Male thread .. <shiver>)

It's no big deal - I happen to be fascinated by the implications, but
perhaps no-one else is.  I'm equally amused by misreads, I should add.
One friend admitted sie had me pegged as a 30something aggressive
yuppster type (rough quote), which is a hoot - to me, anyway.  Another
was much relieved when I told hir that I'm just like hir, in that it
takes me ages and substantial effort to make up a good post.  Sie
thought I just lashed this stuff off without a second thought.  Ars
celare artem, J (if you're reading, and I spelt(/led?) it correctly :-)!
In fact, I'm getting faster these days, but it ends up showing - there
have been some grotesque typos and grammatical faux-pas in the few
things I've put up since my recent return.  Swings and roundabouts.

>-roy, who's listening to NIN and therefore probably slightly hostile right
> now, in addition to suddenly feeling rather toppish :)

I gotta say, I would *never* have pegged you for Nine Inch Nails, Roy
(except, perhaps, as implements :-)  "Assume Nothing" applies again ...

hugs
Mike
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi