Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Is kinky sex evil? If not, why not?

Page: 1(2)

11:27 / 05.09.01

quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
Jesus. One could argue, you know, that even associating whatever your idea of non-normative sexuality is with murder is pretty fucking offensive...

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: The Flyboy ]

Flyboy, the point was to provide extreme examples for contrast. Sorry if that offended you, but since we are here:

Perhaps the examples were not to your taste, but that IS how "kinky" is often portrayed in the media, and like it or not that is how the majority of people get their information. The enlightened may have the correct idea of what kink really is, but for most people in this world, they have little or no exposure except through what they are told by the mass media.

The most vivid images described as kinky most people have seen out there in general media are horrid sex crimes in the tabloids and film characters such as the Gimp from Pulp Fiction.

Right or wrong, in mass media kinkiness is generally portrayed as sick and pathetic, criminal, or comic, and *very* rarely as erotic.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Verbal Kint ]

11:28 / 05.09.01

quote:Originally posted by The Flyboy:
By the way,

That's your conception of the "crux of the argument", son. Others here may feel that the argument involves "political points" at its core.

Sure, but in order to get to that level of discussion, don't we have to be clear on the terms involved first? Unless kink is purely a political construction, which is surely an argument I'd be willing to listen to.

11:40 / 05.09.01

quote:Originally posted by Crunchy Mr Bananapants:

Less hostile version of this rant: Before anyone else posts to this thread, could they consider whether the distinctions between good and bad (or any other variation on x and y) sex they want to set up are a) useful, b) remotely objective, c) interesting, or d) anything other than a way of describing what you think people should/shouldn't do.

[ 05-09-2001: Message edited by: Crunchy Mr Bananapants ]

Okay. The reason I got a little riled up was that both you and Rosa seemed to be suggesting that my posts were concerned with "describing what [I] think people should/shouldn't do," which was not the case.

I am attempting to be (a) useful and opening up (c) interesting lines of argument. Maybe this topic is played out and picked over and settled for you, but not for everyone. As for (b) remotely objective criteria for describing what people do, I tried to offer on set, extremely limited (the genitals) on one side. You may take issue with the binary this sets up. That is completely understandable and expected. But why not argue it out instead of ad hoc dismissing it as reactionary and unuseful?

11:44 / 05.09.01

quote: I'm concerned with groping for an answer, while you seem mainly concerned with groping yourself.

That's exactly what I was trying to say, actually. I.e., that we would all do better having sex than trying to divide it up into various binary systems, all of which are (more or less explicitly) based on completely archaic moral ideas. The obvious point that binary systems are 'sometimes useful' doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they are in this discussion.

It's also ridiculous for you to complain to Rosa that

quote:This kind of definition of kink, broadened to include every type of sexual behavior, in order to include every type of getting off that is usual to one particular person, is next to useless. Your statement defines precisely everything and precisely nothing. It is not a definition at all.

and then tell me to 'get a grip' when I point out that your attempt at definition does exactly the same thing (i.e., applies to all sexual behaviour.)

But your extremely annoying argumentative style is drawing me into this argument, when all I really want is to get out of it. Thus I'll suggest that plastic hairclips, the kind with little teeth (they often come in nice butterfly shapes) make excellent, cheap and ruthlessly cruel titclamps, and that anybody interested in kink could do worse than go out, get some, and have a play.

11:48 / 05.09.01

quote:Originally posted by Cavatina:
Flyboy, I thought that earlier in the discussion we were trying to differentiate between a consensual sexual enjoyment of what might be regarded by some as 'kinky', and a compulsive erotic cruelty which denies the other person any existence as an active, independent, feeling agent at all. Although some people might claim that such cruelty is indissociable from their 'sexuality', it seems to me that what they affirming is less about having a sexual relationship with another person and more about power and the will-to-power.

Bingo.

11:53 / 05.09.01

quote:Originally posted by Crunchy Mr Bananapants:

and then tell me to 'get a grip' when I point out that your attempt at definition does exactly the same thing (i.e., applies to all sexual behaviour.)

But your extremely annoying argumentative style is drawing me into this argument, when all I really want is to get out of it. Thus I'll suggest that plastic hairclips, the kind with little teeth (they often come in nice butterfly shapes) make excellent, cheap and ruthlessly cruel titclamps, and that anybody interested in kink could do worse than go out, get some, and have a play.

The only thing I want to add is that Rosa's defintion, the one I had a problem with, closes off argument while I think what I proposed opened it up.

And thank you for the tip.

Disco is My Class War

06:09 / 06.09.01

Let's all talk about Rosa while she's not here.

So, todd, I think Rosa would probably agree that she has a habit of going off the handle at people, but no matter what your intent, she wouldn't agree that the distinctions you made were 'opening up' argument, and especially I don't think she'd agree that she'd missed the point.

This kind of definition of kink, broadened to include every type of sexual behavior, in order to include every type of getting off that is usual to one particular person, is next to useless. Your statement defines precisely everything and precisely nothing. It is not a definition at all.

Actually, Rosa is all for leaving definitions at the door, because to her having everything ill-defined and cloudy and kind of weirdly indistinct is what makes sex sexy. Maybe she didn't make herself clear, but maybe to Rosa, kink is not so much a 'thing' to be defined as a toolbox to, like you said, open up the problematics of what is considered sexy/sexual and what is not. Rosa might also argue that kink, the way she uses it, is about an idea that body-minds are surfaces of 'available' heterogeneous erogeneity, with particular bits that are more sensitive or tense than others. 'Kink' is a way we can talk about the diversity and specificity of those surface-tensions. Thus, for Rosa, it is impossible to have 'kink' and 'not-kink', just as it is impossible to have 'usual' and 'unusual', or 'transgressive' and 'mundane'.

Rosa probably wasn't trying to close up discussion, but certainly she seems to be on another wave-length, and if she was here maybe she'd say sorry for not having been more clear. And Rosa also might reckon that in fact, jumping down your throat really kicked off a bit of discussion. Anyhow, I think maybe she'd be happy with the words I've put in her mouth, and she regrets she can't be on Barbelith all the time to answer your questions before others do it for her.

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Rosa d'Ruckus ]

deletia

07:36 / 06.09.01

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cavatina:
Flyboy, I thought that earlier in the discussion we were trying to differentiate between a consensual sexual enjoyment of what might be regarded by some as 'kinky', and a compulsive erotic cruelty which denies the other person any existence as an active, independent, feeling agent at all. Although some people might claim that such cruelty is indissociable from their 'sexuality', it seems to me that what they affirming is less about having a sexual relationship with another person and more about power and the will-to-power

Out of interest, Cav - "will to power"? Is there a referential poetry in the choice of term, or is it simply synonymous with "desire for power" in this context?

11:18 / 06.09.01

Aber nein, not desire or longing, Haus. I deliberately appropriated Nietzsche's phrase to characterize the impulse driving the beatings, whippings, stabbings, gougings of erotic violence. By it I mean a disposition of mind aimed at subjugation of the other person and demonstrating superiority.

deletia

11:24 / 06.09.01

You know, if Uncle Friedrich found you using his phrase for that, he'd probably spank you. Hard.

Regrettable Juvenilia

11:35 / 06.09.01

quote:Originally posted by Cavatina:
I deliberately appropriated Nietzsche's phrase to characterize the impulse driving the beatings, whippings, stabbings, gougings of erotic violence. By it I mean a disposition of mind aimed at subjugation of the other person and demonstrating superiority.

Ahem.

*through gritted teeth*

Once more with feeling: it's a little bit more complicated than that.

Where's that zine article, Mordant Carnival?

12:09 / 06.09.01

The fascist jackboot is O.K.?

I'm decrying a trendy Sadeian imagination?

So be it.

"... if flesh plus skin equals sensuality, then flesh minus skin equals meat. The skin has turned into rind, or crackling; the garden of fleshly delights becomes a butcher's shop, or Sweeny Todd's kitchen. My flesh encounters your taste for meat. So much the worse for me."

............................................

Flesh has specific orifices to contain the prick that penetrates it but meat's relation to the knife is more random and a thrust anywhere will do. Sade explores the inhuman sexual possibilities of meat; it is a mistake to think that the substance of which his actors are made is flesh. There is nothing alive or sensual about them. Sade is a great puritan and will disinfect anything he can lay his hands on; therefore he writes about sexual relations in terms of butchery and meat."

Angela Carter, The Sadeian Woman

[ 06-09-2001: Message edited by: Cavatina ]

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:12 / 07.09.01

quote:Originally posted by Cavatina:
The fascist jackboot is O.K.?

I'm decrying a trendy Sadeian imagination?

They only do it cos it's trendy. That one again, eh?

I'm just trying to suggest that making the role of 'top/dom' in a BDSM scene correspond directly to the 'will to power', or a need to assert superiority, let alone actual fascism is a leetle bit simplistic. Not to mention insulting.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:27 / 07.09.01

Or perhaps there's a deep-seated connection between the two. Totalitarian uniforms are always intended to be sexy. That's part of how it works...

deletia

08:31 / 07.09.01

Little fascist panties trapped inside the heart of every nice boy?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:57 / 07.09.01

Little sex-maniacs trapped in every fascist?

Anyway, who said anything about boys?

08:57 / 07.09.01

Excuse me while I peel the swastika off my latex jockstrap.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:57 / 07.09.01

My God.

I hope you use an alkali body cream to avoid acid burning.

10:06 / 07.09.01

I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?

Page: 1(2)