Equality For All Sexual Minorities

[Mischa]

I think that this is a great argument to be having amongst socialists and communists, and unfortunately, my time is a little pressed right now, so I'll just add my $.02 then maybe a little more later...

I think what both of you cats are doing are overlooking the woman side of things. "Is it okay to tie up a woman and simulate rape?" What does the woman have to say about this? Clearly, guys aren't kidnapping women, throwing them in the back of a van, tying them up and "simulating" raping them, because, that's rape. If you don't have the mentality for such things like being tied up, it's really hard to understand what exactly is so damn appealing about it when it just looks like nothing more than straight up objectifying of women (or men, or whatever).

Personally, and sorry if I venture into the "too much information" land, a lot of my sexual fantasies are about power and control, and have had thoughts about being tied up. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I think I agree with the others who are saying that there is a fine line between "Christian fascist sexual regulations", and "the anything goes crowd". Anything that happens in the bedroom should stay exactly there, the damned bedroom. No victim no crime.

Some people are submissive, some are dominant. There's that old cliched saying of "if she says no, it's rape", which goes deeper than that obviously, which is, "anything against his/her will is rape". If acting out fantasies of control are what get people's rocks off, so long as it's a consentual setting, then hell, I'm all for it.

(Maybe more later...)

[repeater]

I disagree with this point (and I suspect that flyby will disagree even more).

Consent is only one level of analysis. There is oppression in sexual relations even with consent, and of course consent is not always easy to peg down. The most extreme example of where consent can still reproduce oppression would be in something like Female Genital Mutilation (otherwise known as female circumcision or FGM). An investigation of this practice will show that not only do many women "consent" to the act, many of them actively reproduce it. A similar thing happened with regards to foot-binding in China. It does seem like putting the bar at consent argues for an ultimately bourgeois take on sexual relations around the idea of "freedom of choice".

Just to be clear both of these practices have everything to do with sexuality and not simply gender. In the case of foot-binding, sexual attraction from males (and marriage) was often predicated upon being bound. In the case of FGM, women are considered unclean if they have not been cut and of course it completely destroys any sexual pleasure on the part of women.

[Mischa]

I think that what you said actually proves my point more than your own.

Consent is only one level of analysis. There is oppression in sexual relations even with consent, and of course consent is not always easy to peg down.

Consent is only one level of analysis? What other level of analyses need there be in a sexual relationship? Who are you or ANYone to decide who what how and or when I can and cannot screw? Do you want us to fax the government permission slips by all consenting adults?

The most extreme example of where consent can still reproduce oppression would be in something like Female Genital Mutilation (otherwise known as female circumcision or FGM). An investigation of this practice will show that not only do many women "consent" to the act, many of them actively reproduce it. A similar thing happened with regards to foot-binding in China. It does seem like putting the bar at consent argues for an ultimately bourgeois take on sexual relations around the idea of "freedom of choice".

That's absurd. You can prove that any act perpetuated by the ruling class has "consent" by its base by clever means of media manipulation, or just flat out lying. The United States media monopoly does a good job of showing us just how much the Iraqis "consent" to use invading their country, when evidence to the contrary is staggering, just like in your two examples. Women weren't allowed to speak on their own behalf anyways, so what does their consent even matter in those two situations? After a revolution I would HOPE that women would have more voice than they did in feudal China. I think your view of 'consent' is borderline insulting, truth be told.

Plus, foot binding and FGM are two ancient policies perpetuated by ruling classes, these certainly are not, for lack of a better word, 'neutral' situations. With your same logic, I can argue that women have a "choice" right now to do whatever they like, yet apparently, leaving things up to their "consent", 80% of housework still happens to be done by women. Obviously, consent is not the answer.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't think that such policies like BDSM should be condoned by the government, but they shouldn't be condemned either. And foot binding, and FGM were two policies condoned by the government. That's not a fair comparison.

[repeater]

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't think that such policies like BDSM should be condoned by the government, but they shouldn't be condemned either. And foot binding, and FGM were two policies condoned by the government. That's not a fair comparison.

I'm afraid the situation is much more complicated than you make it appear. For one, FGM is illegal in many of the countries where it is practiced, this doesn't change the fact that it occurs. In fact it happens in places like the U.S. among immigrant communities. Secondly on the issue of consent, I would suggest that this is socially constructed. For instance polls show that around 40% of women in Togo affected by the practice of FGM think that it should continue. Moreover it is women who often encourage or force their daughters to be "circumcised" and it is women who perform the "circumcision". In the Chinese case I have seen documentaries where women expressed how sad they were when they found out the practice of foot-binding was banned because they were afraid that their unbound feet would negatively affect their chances for marriage.

This is certainly not an argument for cultural relativism. My opinion on the subject is that the practice is wrong and oppressive whether women in their totality believe it or not. On this basis it should be ended.

My only point was that it's not "all good" and that consent is not the ultimate benchmark of whether something is oppressive or not.

Consent is only one level of analysis? What other level of analyses need there be in a sexual relationship? Who are you or ANYone to decide who what how and or when I can and cannot screw? Do you want us to fax the government permission slips by all consenting adults?

Another level of analysis would be whether something is oppressive or not. This does not rest solely on consent, as I suggested by showing some extreme cases.

I don't think you understand my position. There is nothing I said which suggests that you should "fill out permission slips" or anything like that. It doesn't help to use hyperbole or twist someone else's view.

Plus, foot binding and FGM are two ancient policies perpetuated by ruling classes, these certainly are not, for lack of a better word, 'neutral' situations. With your same logic, I can argue that women have a "choice" right now to do whatever they like, yet apparently, leaving things up to their "consent", 80% of housework still happens to be done by women. Obviously, consent is not the answer.

Think about this:

There is a culture of sexual humiliation and dominance in this society, the U.S. It is expressed everywhere from junior high "pranks" to Abu Ghraib. Isn't it just possible that this culture is the root of the idea that all sexual relations occur between dominant and subordinate actors? Couldn't this be the source of the desire to play out sexuality in this way? Doesn't the promulgation of this culture through mass media and social interaction give the appearance that this is natural and that it can be consented to?

I agree consent is not the answer, I don't understand why you think I argued that it is. It seemed to be you who was arguing that as long as there is consent then it's all good, but you don't set out any description of what you mean by consent.

One of my points is that consent is highly contested and hard to pin down. How do you come to a decision as to whether consent is real or not? Is it based upon what a person says? People will often say they consented to something when they didn't and in other cases they will in fact consent to things which oppress them, so consent cannot be the only level of analysis.

One last point:

To assume that women who agree with the practice are insincere is patronizing in its own way.

[repeater]

I think that what you said actually proves my point more than your own.

In that case I have no idea what your point is.

[Mischa]

First off, let me say that I'm sorry I came off as hostile and abrasive, I think I just put words in your mouth and didn't actually understand where you were coming from. I was just too ready to play the victim, because I consider myself a "sexual miniority" and came off attacking immediately when I should've read your points through more thoroughly than I had. But anyways...

I'm afraid the situation is much more complicated than you make it appear. For one, FGM is illegal in many of the countries where it is practiced, this doesn't change the fact that it occurs. In fact it happens in places like the U.S. among immigrant communities. Secondly on the issue of consent, I would suggest that this is socially constructed. For instance polls show that around 40% of women in Togo affected by the practice of FGM think that it should continue. Moreover it is women who often encourage or force their daughters to be "circumcised" and it is women who perform the "circumcision". In the Chinese case I have seen documentaries where women expressed how sad they were when they found out the practice of foot-binding was banned because they were afraid that their unbound feet would negatively affect their chances for marriage.

This is certainly not an argument for cultural relativism. My opinion on the subject is that the practice is wrong and oppressive whether women in their totality believe it or not. On this basis it should be ended.

My only point was that it's not "all good" and that consent is not the ultimate benchmark of whether something is oppressive or not.

I agree. One point I should've given you from the getgo is that consent is hard to really mandate or understand, you're right. However, this is also on the context of after a revolution, correct? I know that mentalities won't automatically change overnight after the revolution, which was pretty evident in China, but I do still think you're comparing apples and oranges, and here is why...

In a situation like feet binding and forced female circumcision, you have immediate physical and psychological ailments that spawn out of these two practices, but can you honestly say the same thing about someone who likes to role play being tied up? In addition, these are things that are pretty much forced on societally, the same way, say, a woman is forced into the home. The same isn't necessarily true of someone who likes to be tied up. I can see where you're coming from, because we do live in a patriarchal society, however some guys (*raises hand*) like to be tied up too.

What about people who like to injure themselves by cutting or burning? There's a whole underground culture of this, (www.bmezine.com) what about people who like a lot of piercings and tatoos, or just pain in general?

Maybe there are debilitating factors in society that mandate those types of behaviors, but I think it's unfair to compare something like BDSM to something like foot binding, basically speaking on my own experience, there's really little to no historical materialism attached to this. So long as people aren't forced into it, then I see no problem.

I guess the question boils down to "are you a victim if you don't think you are?" It's a slippery slope if you begin to legislate and mandate such things. I think that maybe the best we can do is remove the stigma surrounding these subjects, and have an open discussion about them.