Penetration

[Stella_Omega]

Me too, only without the 'ripping you a new one part'.

I retract my questions.

Why, because the answers aren't what you wanted? because your privileged demands made some people a little angrier than they already were?

ETA: you really did "retract" I.E. delete) your questions. It's in my cache however. Let me rectify that;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netzach
I'm sorry, I don't even have a problem with what happened to you in Ptown - I think it's asshole but I understand why queer people would be like "this fucking flyspeck of the map is ours.

I think my next question would have been, "Do you support this type of action?" Would it be considered propagating the situation, or simply a justifiable result from one who has experienced such actions amongst those that fall into the general category of the original aggressors?

Are you asking whether one woman's anger towards heterosexual privilege should be condemned because homosexual oppression is also kinda not so nice?

No, I think she's perfectly justified in her anger, although, as Netz pointed out-- it was not nice for you.

I think you also imply in there that because she was mean to you, we should worry that she might cause you to hate gay people, and we should be horrified at the possibility. Is that right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netzach
You got someone asking you to leave a store? Yep, that's wrong and asshole of them, now you have experienced 1/100000000th of what the people who asked you to leave have experienced.

If the above was answered in the positive, could I then be justified in mistreatment (in its many and varied forms) against a race/culture/sexual preference/shoe size/whatever if, at some point in the past and quite possibly in the present, I felt that they (as a collective, not as individuals) were openly hostile towards me and/or my race/culture/sexual preference/ shoe size/ whatever? Is it only justifiable if I am part of the majority, as the person in PTown evidently felt she was? Or is it only justifiable if I am part of the minority, which she was when you look at the country overall (i.e. the fucking flyspeck)?

You compared, as I said, several pernicious and destructive social constructs, which have damaged countless individuals, to...

Shoe size.

No, no, no, no, and again, no. Don't do that, if you want to actually engage in a conversation with people who have been victims of those constructs. You will disappoint them, and make them not trust you much.

AS to the question itself...

"Some gay people were mean to me, so I might join a lynch mob later, and it will be all their fault."

I think that's what you're saying, inside all that obfuscation.

Dude, why not think of it the other way around?

"Straight folk have lynched an awful lot of gays-- so it's no wonder gay folk don't automatically trust straights."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Netzach
You want to create equivalency where there isn't.

Yes, I think I do.

Whether its in a shop in Ptown or the BSA or wherever, I do think I would want to create a bit more equivalency. But then again, I like to tilt at windmills. In most cases I could give a rat's ass what a person's sexual preference or identification is, unless it is pertinent to the situation at hand. Even then, I don't think it matters unless the person in question is the one who brings it up. No way in hell am I perfect; I just got bigger things to worry about.

What is bigger for you is probably not bigger for your compatriot. Some people have no choice at all in what is big for them-- you've just told them that their efforts to preserve their identity and autonomy are small and unimportant.

On the other hand, not being looked upon with indulgent smiles when you paraded your hetero privilege in one of the very few gay-friendly places in the US? That seems to have been very upsetting for you. Let me pass you a hanky.

I may have sounded like I was bitching about the comment, but I am simply looking for a bit more information, to tell the truth. When I worked in New Hope (which is a smaller version of PTown) I didn't see a whole lot of this; maybe I live a sheltered life. I met some truly exquisite Dommes, walked among the leather crowd, saw my first true dungeon (complete with secret entrances), but overall the openness of the community is what made it comfortable.

Nobody cared if I was a breeder or not.

For one thing, while New Hope is a tourist town, Ptown is a gay tourist town.

When you say "walked among the leather crowd" do you mean the gay, male, leather crowd, which is pretty much closed to outsiders? Because the pansexual BDSM crowd isn't quite that. Sure, a lot of leatherfolk are comfortable in the pan community. You probably didn't meet the ones that weren't, and I'm sure you can guess the reasons why they might stay away, if you think about it.

 

[intothewoods]

Questions, comparisons, and examples removed.

Why are you so resentful about the behavior of a few overzealous folks? I mean, do you really not understand the difference between a subgroup of gay people who don't want the straights invading their little haven and discrimination which is both cultural and institutional in our country?

Maybe you have to be a member of a minority group to get this. Sorry, but sometimes there is stuff that only people who are like you get and sometimes minorities need a safe space that is limited to just them. That's not quite the same as a shop owner kicking you out, but it's related. And it will never be the same for a person in the majority to discriminate in the same way, so long as there is still widespread cultural and institutional discrimination.

Wow, wtf Stella?!

I would not describe that post as diplomatic, but I can't really disagree. The whole woe is me, hey, why can minorities do x and I can't thing is just old to me -- why don't people just get it by now? Why is there a Black Entertainment Network? If there were a White Entertainment Network, people would call that racist! Someone recently said that last one to me and I was like seriously people are still making this argument? Ohmygod. Come on. Educate yourself. Why wouldn't you want to educate yourself? Why do you want to cling to the viewpoint that is going to be the wrong side of history. Because that's what it is.

 

[satindesire]

I would not describe that post as diplomatic, but I can't really disagree.

I didn't say I disagreed, I was just shocked at the hostility. Don't mistake my shock for disagreement, that's not fair.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I didn't say I disagreed, I was just shocked at the hostility. Don't mistake my shock for disagreement, that's not fair.

I tend react to passive-aggressive hostility with the real thing.

In fact, covert hostility pisses me off much, much, more than overt.

 

[Seurat]

I retract my questions.

Why, because the answers aren't what you wanted? because your privileged demands made some people a little angrier than they already were?

No, because I suck ass when it comes to trying to get words out without doing a really good job of pissing people off when that isn't my intent. When I thought back about it, I figured I would rather not kick a bee's nest if I didn't have to.

I think my next question would have been, "Do you support this type of action?" Would it be considered propagating the situation, or simply a justifiable result from one who has experienced such actions amongst those that fall into the general category of the original aggressors?

Are you asking whether one woman's anger towards heterosexual privilege should be condemned because homosexual oppression is also kinda not so nice?

No, I think she's perfectly justified in her anger, although, as Netz pointed out-- it was not nice for you.

I think you also imply in there that because she was mean to you, we should worry that she might cause you to hate gay people, and we should be horrified at the possibility. Is that right?

No. My question is probably rephrased a little better as: did/does Netzach support the right for a person of an oppressed/attacked community to reverse the situation on persons who would fall into the general category of the opressing group, regardless of their position? I.e. in this situation, is it perfectly reasonable for a gay person to lash out as a straight, even if the straight has done nothing to opress or support the opression of gays? A bit too personal I will admit, but I was curious of the standpoint.

You compared, as I said, several pernicious and destructive social constructs, which have damaged countless individuals, to...

Shoe size.

Yes, and it made sense to me at the time. It makes as much sense to me to victimize somebody for their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, or the country they were born in as it would be to victimize them for the size of their feet: absolutely-fucking-none whatsoever. As far as I believe, none of those things are controlled by us in any fucking way, and to persecute somebody because of it is so fucking stupid as to be unbelievable. If you want to dislike somebody, don't do it for something they had no control over. At least have a good reason.

Going back to the original question: was the action of the store clerk justified? I think in the broad sense, yes. But in the specific instance, no.

"Some gay people were mean to me, so I might join a lynch mob later, and it will be all their fault."

I think that's what you're saying, inside all that obfuscation.

Why the fuck would I do that? If I have a problem with an individuals actions, I either ignore them or try to figure out what the hell went wrong. I dropped physical confrontationor getting in somebody's face the last time the cops were called. If I have a problem with a group, I run and hide.

Dude, why not think of it the other way around?

"Straight folk have lynched an awful lot of gays-- so it's no wonder gay folk don't automatically trust straights."

Exactly! But is that how you look at people first, as gay or straight, or somewhere inbetween? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do they automatically start a peg or three down lower, simply because of their sexual orientation? That was the impression I got from your statement, and I was looking for clarification.

What is bigger for you is probably not bigger for your compatriot. Some people have no choice at all in what is big for them-- you've just told them that their efforts to preserve their identity and autonomy are small and unimportant.

I aint got nothing on that one. Good point made.

On the other hand, not being looked upon with indulgent smiles when you paraded your hetero privilege in one of the very few gay-friendly places in the US? That seems to have been very upsetting for you. Let me pass you a hanky.

Your concern is noted.

For one thing, while New Hope is a tourist town, Ptown is a gay tourist town.

Another point made. Most of my childhood memories of both are a blur, but all were very pleasant. It was only the recent ones which have left any other impression. Another point taken.

When you say "walked among the leather crowd" do you mean the gay, male, leather crowd, which is pretty much closed to outsiders? Because the pansexual BDSM crowd isn't quite that. Sure, a lot of leatherfolk are comfortable in the pan community. You probably didn't meet the ones that weren't, and I'm sure you can guess the reasons why they might stay away, if you think about it.

Nope, it was the full on leather crowd, in both businesses and private residences. I did a lot of work for them during my time in the area. Outside of a few special situations, their sexuality and activities had nothing to do with my work, but the nature of my work meant that I was called upon 24/7 regardless of what was going on. I saw some very interesting things.




If I was coming across as an ass, I sort of expected it. I do that a lot, regardless of intent. And I tend to be an ass anyway.

If I came across as a martyr wannabe, well I guess that goes along with me being an ass. I was ready to drop the questions, not because I was looking to be the martyr, but because I realized I was saying all the things I wanted to say in a completely wrong way.

I'm not going to learn anything either way, but at least if I can taken them down, I could have figured out a better way to phrase things so that I got some education instead of reprimands. It's hard to talk to people if I am too busy stepping on toes.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you for coming back!

No, because I suck ass when it comes to trying to get words out without doing a really good job of pissing people off when that isn't my intent. When I thought back about it, I figured I would rather not kick a bee's nest if I didn't have to.

I totally understand that. Practice makes perfect-- or at any rate, practice makes less fail. Trust me on this one, I've had a lot of practice at fucking up.

No. My question is probably rephrased a little better as: did/does Netzach support the right for a person of an oppressed/attacked community to reverse the situation on persons who would fall into the general category of the opressing group, regardless of their position? I.e. in this situation, is it perfectly reasonable for a gay person to lash out as a straight, even if the straight has done nothing to opress or support the opression of gays? A bit too personal I will admit, but I was curious of the standpoint.

The "support the right to oppress" is a loaded way to construct the question, like "are you still beating your wife."

a better way to approach it is; "is it understandable that a person would seize the chance to visit some of the treatment they have experienced, on a representative of the mistreating group?" Majorities strictly speaking don't have the "right" to mistreat minorities either-- but they do, in big and little ways.

Yes, and it made sense to me at the time. It makes as much sense to me to victimize somebody for their sexual orientation, the color of their skin, or the country they were born in as it would be to victimize them for the size of their feet: absolutely-fucking-none whatsoever. As far as I believe, none of those things are controlled by us in any fucking way, and to persecute somebody because of it is so fucking stupid as to be unbelievable. If you want to dislike somebody, don't do it for something they had no control over. At least have a good reason.

You're telling this to the very people who know it best, dude. It isn't news to us. It would have been better to speak this piece, by the way, upfront, before we go assuming the worst (as is so damn easy to do, based on fifty years of talking with straight guys...)

Going back to the original question: was the action of the store clerk justified? I think in the broad sense, yes. But in the specific instance, no.

You insulted her. She's managed to make herself a safe place, free of hetero privilege-- and here you come, putting your privilege all over her shop. You should have known better, in her mind.

No more than any straight shopkeeper is justified in throwing out two gay guys who have just kissed each other. I know you would not condone that-- but it happens all the time. Every gay or lesbian person knows they should not insult the straight majority with PDAs. Both in the broad sense and in the specific.

I might expect you to behave similarly in an all-gay territory-- just out of good manners. I assume that, if you go back to P-town you'll be more knowledgeable, right? Don't shove your hetness in the local's faces. It's rude.

Why the fuck would I do that? If I have a problem with an individuals actions, I either ignore them or try to figure out what the hell went wrong. I dropped physical confrontationor getting in somebody's face the last time the cops were called. If I have a problem with a group, I run and hide.

Good to know. But if you reread your words, you might admit that they don't read that way.

Exactly! But is that how you look at people first, as gay or straight, or somewhere inbetween? Do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do they automatically start a peg or three down lower, simply because of their sexual orientation? That was the impression I got from your statement, and I was looking for clarification.

I am here as a queer person, and I am talking with many straight folks.

After fifty years of being queer and in a female body... You can trust me when I say that it's best for me if I protect myself first, instead of after. I can always relax once I've satisfied myself that someone is not going to, for instance, say something incredibly stupid and assumptive without even knowing it. Or, I can be hurt and shocked and put on the defensive... yet again. It may seem hurtful to you, to experience it the once-- I experience it over and over again. Every time I meet another straight person I have to assess how they will react if my nature comes up. You-- never do, unless you happen to be in Provincetown with a girlfriend.

I aint got nothing on that one. Good point made.

Your concern is noted.

Another point made. Most of my childhood memories of both are a blur, but all were very pleasant. It was only the recent ones which have left any other impression. Another point taken.

I appreciate these.

Nope, it was the full on leather crowd, in both businesses and private residences. I did a lot of work for them during my time in the area. Outside of a few special situations, their sexuality and activities had nothing to do with my work, but the nature of my work meant that I was called upon 24/7 regardless of what was going on. I saw some very interesting things.

If I was coming across as an ass, I sort of expected it. I do that a lot, regardless of intent. And I tend to be an ass anyway.

If I came across as a martyr wannabe, well I guess that goes along with me being an ass. I was ready to drop the questions, not because I was looking to be the martyr, but because I realized I was saying all the things I wanted to say in a completely wrong way.

I'm not going to learn anything either way, but at least if I can taken them down, I could have figured out a better way to phrase things so that I got some education instead of reprimands. It's hard to talk to people if I am too busy stepping on toes.

Kudos to you for giving it a second shot, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that!

 

[blane75]

Kudos to you for giving it a second shot, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that!

It wasn't a second shot. He quit.

Maybe be back when in a few hours days weeks if/when I get my fucking head on straighter. I can't take this.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It wasn't a second shot. He quit.

he quit but he came back. This fight is all fought out... probably...

let it go, there will be others.

 

[Honed_Hunger]

[kinky nerd alert]

I'm reading this interesting book (linked in my sig) by Peter Masters right now; the easiest thing I can half-assedly describe it as is BDSM from a anthropological/sociological/Jungian point of view. I know not everyone is interested in the biological and psychological impact of power based relationships, but a girl's gotta keep her mind occupied between lovers somehow, right?

Anyway -

I don't know if it would actually even be an interesting topic or what direction it could go in, but I read an interesting chapter this evening on penetration. The most obvious thing one might think of when one hears the word "penetration" in a BDSM sort of way, is fucking - PYL fucks pyl (duh); however, the OED definition of penetration includes the follow entries-

*To get into or through, fain entrance or access to, especially with force, effort or difficulty
*To bring light into or to see through
*To pierce
*To have or get intellectual or spiritual access, insight or knowledge
*To find out, discover, discern
*To affect or influence deeply
*To touch the heart or feelings of
*To cause to hear or take notice
*To be fully understood or appreciated

Like I said - I'm not sure exactly what direction the discussion could take, but it was interesting to me... because if one utilized an expanded definition of the word [penetration], it sort of minimizes of the limitations of looking at BDSM as PYL fucks pyl... (although that's still awfully yummy)

[/kinky nerd alert]

Bump for an indepth topic........

I do find it refreshing to see I'm not the only one who is still trying to decipher their own internal wiring schematic.

Between mental vs. physical penetration.........It's the mental penetration of another that totally fuels my own personal desires the strongest. I must find a way to get past the barriers and see directly into the very soul of my submissive. The more she tries to prevent said access, the more I wonder what's lurking there and the harder I'll try to genuinely win her trust. I need that bond of trust in place, and it's a bond I never break with another person who has the show of faith to confide in me.

After all.......my words, and my actions that back them up, are my bond. If I were to be stripped bare naked, penniless and broke..........all I have left to define me is my character exhibited thus far.

It takes one level of trust to allow someone free, limitless access to their body for your sexual use. A much deeper level of trust is required before one becomes privy to any and all of their past and present thought processes.

There are also cases where supreme/total mental penetration is far to intimate/dangerous/scary to ever be allowed. The mere quest for such a deep emotional bond can drive others away. But that's another thread entirely........

OTOH.........these high-end mind games are not without pitfalls. One can't expect to be the sole penetrator and not put themselves out there to be examined in return. I have allowed myself to be mentally penetrated before by putting my soul out for inspection. Only to have every disclosed chink in my armor used against me when the whole shit went south.
Risky business to say the least, but still a headgame I can't get away from.