Should we be inclusive?

[Never]

While perusing a link cymbidia offered a while ago, I stumbled upon an essay by Lady Beth on whether it benefited the BDSM community, and individuals of that community, to become ‘more inclusive’. The writer argues that the BDSM community is already composed of members of all ages, races, preferences, SE level, and body types. By trying to splice together the historic ‘groups’ of BDSM, we do not celebrate, but destroy them.

Here is her main idea -

By Lady Beth:
The entire article can be found here.

“In the U.S., much of our leather culture is owed to the gay male community. They have a history and cultural experience that is unique to their group. When they gather together, their powerful energy is something that marks them as quite different from either the leather lesbians or the heterosexual communities. By inclusion, do we mean to bluster into their all-male space thereby altering it or even reducing it forever?

Leather lesbians have fought their own rather fierce battles within the lesbian community simply for the privilege to exist. Through our inclusive philosophies, shall we presume to know and understand the sacrifices and battles they have endured to exist within their sisterhood? Isn't it appropriate that as leather lesbians they wish to gather together alone to celebrate their hard won place?

Must those of a heterosexual or bisexual bent be obliged to downplay their attraction to those of the opposite sex in order to fit into a leather mold? The male to female dynamics are by nature, unique to this group, and such interactions can be troubling to those of the same sexual persuasion. Might it not be preferable to allow them to gather together and freely explore the intimacies of gender-to-gender BDSM?”

She ends with a few paragraphs about appreciating the differences each individual brings, acceptance of differences, and ‘celebrating diversity’.

How do you respond to this personally?
What about this articles broader implications?

I can see some merit in her argument but I dislike the assumptions she seems to make.

What if, instead of dividing BDSM along sexual preferences, she divided BDSM along race or education level? Or is that comparing apples and oranges?

 

[Lancecastor]

Sometimes diversity can be "celebrated" in such a way as to seen as a range of delineated and compartmentalized exclusivities.

I think an anon BB amplifies that as a possibility.

Conversely, it is ironic to note, those who gain the most acceptance in a broader BDSM context are likely those who say the least about themselves.

But perhaps the irony is ironic itself and has gone out for coffee with the vanillas.....because IRL, marginalized groups are more likely to "talk sex" or be sexuallly "overt" than mainstreamers, yes?

So, is the answer "Fries with that"? Should the question mark stay inside the quotation marks and be "normal"? Yes!

Inclusive? Yes. Homogenized? No. Pigeonholers? NO.

Cornholers? Pigfuckers? YEAH Baby!

It's hard sometimes.

Good thread.

 

[sexy-girl]

Meow i like the new av never


i've always said that labels sometimes can be good as they can empower us ... when i kissed my best friend and afterwards she told me she wasn't like that and didn't talk to me for 3 months it was hard but knowing i was a lesbian and that she was straight helped although i felt abnormal and alone i knew there was others like me out there


i think labels are harmful when they are forced on us by others though


im still unsure though about the excessive use of labels that some people want to use ... a christian leather boi lesbian dyke african american for instance (just a made up stupid example by way) but then if i want to call myself a lesbian then why shouldn't someone be able to call themselves that


also i think some people who pick labels too readily ... switching between them when it suits their needs but yet again who am i to judge someone on doing that


i guess i have more questions than answers but it is something that interests me

 

[MissTaken]

I am a proponent for acceptance of diversity.

I can respect someone's history and struggle, but that doesn't mean that I can't be part of the group that has evolved from their history.

Perhaps, am I completely missing the point, but if this article were in reference to the blacks struggle in the last several centuries, wouldn't her view be one of discrimination to some degree?

 

[artful]

Just an opinion

I see the questions, as ones that are often debated and deliberated between the separate Christian churches/beliefs/organisations/cults, etc.

I wonder how many different branches there are now? Are they all inclusive, blah, blah, blah, ...and it will be debated at LEAST, till I am 6 foot under.

(JMHO),...but it's mine,...and I own it.

 

[NemoAlia]

I wonder what has changed in the past few decades that has made us all so interested in diversity. Seems to me that in the 40s-60s, the motto was "We're just the same as you are!" when groups were making their voices heard.

**Edited for subject/verb agreement. Doh!

 

[MissTaken]

I wonder what has changed in the past few decades that has made us all so interested in diversity. Seems to me that in the 40s-60s, the motto was "We're just the same as you are!" when groups were making their voices heard.

**Edited for subject/verb agreement. Doh!

True enough.

IT used to be, we are all equal and the same.

Now, the cue words of the new millenium have to do with "diversity", "cultural competence", etc.


How did this evolve?

Perhaps it was the result of the "Me" Generation?

 

[Sandia]

Leather lesbians have fought their own rather fierce battles within the lesbian community simply for the privilege to exist. Through our inclusive philosophies, shall we presume to know and understand the sacrifices and battles they have endured to exist within their sisterhood? Isn't it appropriate that as leather lesbians they wish to gather together alone to celebrate their hard won place?

It seems strangely contradictory to me. Leather lesbians fought a battle to exist? (Who was stopping them?)

And now they want to be left alone?

It seems like an argument for status: a desire to be accepted, without having to be accepting.

Sometimes communities can act like nurseries, a place to go where you know your prejudices will be validated, rather than challenged.

 

[NemoAlia]

It seems like an argument for status: a desire to be accepted, without having to be accepting.

You said it, Sandia!

 

[Cirrus]

There's one point in that I'd like to comment on: the "leather" aspect. Yes, most of BDSM as we know it today was begun by leathermen, the bulk of whom, if not exclusively, are gay. Where I live, there seems to have been an odd resergence of the leather culture. I don't know if it's here or everywhere, or if it ever really died, but leather glad homosexual guys and girls seem to be everywhere the last few months. I for one think it's great...though I'm not gay, I stand behind gay pride. I often equate my preferences for BDSM with being gay...I can't be "out" to many of my friends, or even my family. I can just picture my poor, sweet little old grandma at the Thanksgiving table when I tell her what those marks on my wrists are REALLY from. LOL My family is also devoutly religious (I'm not)...they'd probably disown me if they knew, just as they would if I were gay. So, we share a common thread.

But IMO, that's where the similarity stops. I have never, EVER once seen a gay couple uncomfortable around me or other hetero individuals or couples. I have a friend that recently went Hawaii and married his boyfriend, and if anything, I was a maybe a little shocked at the concept. Those who are gay or bi know that as their "normal", and those who are straight know that as "normal" too. Anyone who thinks any differently, straight or gay, has got a complex.

And though I'm in the BDSM lifestyle, I'm not part of the leather community. I'm sure there are those in the leather community that dress in the style and associate with like minded people, but are nilla in the bedroom. By not wanting to be lumped into a category, the writer of this article is lumping people into categories. I take people at face value...I don't judge ANYONE by who they associate with.