Time Magazine Article

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

BDSM makes latest issue of Time Magazine. "Bondage Unbound" by John Cloud.

http://www.time.com/time/2004/sex/article/bondage_unbound_growing01a.html

Interesting article...

Discuss your thoughts here.

~anelize

 

[catalina_francisco]

Sure to enlighten a few I guess, though in what way remains to be seen. For a magazine article written by a presumably uninitiated journalist in a limited space and context it seems to give an overall picture, vague as it may be at times.
One could be forgiven for thinking it may have been written by someone on the board here....I am aware there have been many speculations about people using our threads for research...LOL, guess if any regular faces disappear suddenly their secret may be out.

Catalina

 

[niteshade]

I found it very well written, and correct. I thought the author did a great job of remaining neutral right up until the last sentance... which may or may not have been the addition of an editor . I think that reading something like that, in Time magazine, may have made it a little easier for me to admit to myself where my interest lies; the artical makes it very clear that there are many people who enjoy some of the aspects of bdsm, and maybe that will get through to someone who still struggles with the agony of self disgust as I did.

Just as a side note, I wanted to thank everyone here for tone of this board. Things may not be as they were when I first posted 6 months ago, and that is a shame, but I feel a lot more comfortable in my own skin now, and you guys are mostly responisble for helping me get there.

 

[Desdemona]

Interesting article. I thought it was objectively presented. Not bad PR for kinksters.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

I thought it rather interesting that they picked a Dom/sub couple who espoused conservative christian views, right down to mentioning the "Left Behind" books that the Dom read, and the Southern Baptist Convention's resolutions for how men should treat their wives. Tied it all up in a nice neat package for the public. *sarcasm* I didn't find the religious claptrap tie-in necessary AT ALL, and find it indicative of the general political climate in this country that it was mentioned. Sheesh.

Second point--It's quite sad that there was a prime opportunity for the sub to mention safewords, and she either didn't, or the editor cut it out. It would have filled out the SSC education bent if safewords had been mention in this paragraph:

"Of all the knotty issues swirling around BDSM, consent was the most difficult for me to understand. No means no, but does yes always mean yes? If you ask someone to pass a flame across your genitals or tie you up for hours or tell you what to eat, are you in your right mind? I pressed Surri repeatedly on these issues. Finally, after a robust drag on her cigarette (which she had asked Doc's permission to smoke), she answered, "What we worry about when we look at our own community and try to make sure abuse isn't happening is whether submissives are restricted in their speech. And I can always say what I want ... Yes, Doc makes the final decision about things. "

--John Cloud, "Bondage Unbound, Time Magazine, Page 2"

All in all, I think it was a ..... reasonable article.

~anelize

 

[Desdemona]

Annelize, I get your point about the religious stuff. However, my perspective on it is that it has less to do with religion and more to do with their own market surveys and the demographics of the bulk of Time's readers. I suspect that little bow to the religious right in the article was deliberately put in there because it's a controversial subject and the religous references made it a touch more palatable and accessable to that group.

In other words, it's all about the business of not losing conservative, (Christian) religious readers. It would never have gotten published if the couple interviewed happened to be pagans or atheists or espoused some other religion as well as being kinky.

I figure we're just getting the camel's nose in the tent here. LOL

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

I understand what you're getting at Des, but it still irritates the hell out of me. I seriously doubt that any of the other couples interviewed for any of the other articles in that edition had a religious tie-in.

And of course, they couldn't just be plain jane prostestants...ohhhhh NO. Full on, balls to the wall southern baptists, left behind and all.

It just disgusts me, that sort of pandering.

*eyeroll*

~anelize

 

[Desdemona]

I understand what you're getting at Des, but it still irritates the hell out of me. I seriously doubt that any of the other couples interviewed for any of the other articles in that edition had a religious tie-in.

And of course, they couldn't just be plain jane prostestants...ohhhhh NO. Full on, balls to the wall southern baptists, left behind and all.

It just disgusts me, that sort of pandering.

*eyeroll*

~anelize

You're allowed to be irritated. I did a few eyerolls myself as I read that part, but I just laugh at it because I have a feeling that the author was probably disgusted at being forced to include that crap as well. But then, I live in a town where the first thing they ask new people is "Where do you go to church?" And heavens forbid you actually admit that you don't attend church!!! I think I'm kinda numb to that crap after 6 years of people trying to save me and coworkers telling me how they have begun "submitting" to their husbands after a particularly stirring sermon.

 

[AnelizeDarkEyes]

<snip> I think I'm kinda numb to that crap after 6 years of people trying to save me and coworkers telling me how they have begun "submitting" to their husbands after a particularly stirring sermon.

*chuckle*

I loved that.

Living in the buckle of the bible belt down here can get rather interesting, can't it??

~anelize

 

[TNRkitect2b]

Interesting article... though I too sense a heavy handed editor's touch. At first read, it seems even handed, but upon re-reading, you realise that there is a different tone to the article. I'm not sure if the writer or the editior is to blame, (I supsect the editor) but you still get a tone of this is out there and it is bad. (especially towards the end.)

It is a more even handed article than I would have expected from a mainstream magazine though.

my two cents on it.

 

[Desdemona]

*chuckle*

I loved that.

Living in the buckle of the bible belt down here can get rather interesting, can't it??

~anelize

Yep. *grin*

 

[catalina_francisco]

Anelize you got it straight when you said it irritated. It was not just the religious references which irritated me, as I would expect that, but the whole concept of vague representations that no matter what it seemed to come down to, it was portrayed to be play for the bored vanilla population which I do not find myself fitting into. It also irritated in the female hand gestured quotation marks "slave" status which is a pet hate of mine in any circumstance, and usually I find a pet habit of someone not being 100% honest or at the least loving to be the center of attention...just my pet hate but one I find pretentious all the same.

Another area I had difficulty with, and I realise it is mostly because of my own status and definition, was that she identified as slave, played the dumb role of "Master must decide all for me' role to the hilt, except when it didn't suit her and then she pointed out she would refuse to obey or could leave anytime (oh where have we heard that so many times before?!!) and that as slave she held the power in the relationship (and again a familiar ring?).

Now the biggest problem perhaps I had was with the assertion that we would all lose interest in it as a lifestyle or play choice if it were no longer taboo...in other words we do it because we think we are being naughty. Sorry, but that is not my motivation or reason, and apart from legal changes which would ensure the rest of the world had the safety we have in The Netherlands to practice SSC BDSM, I really don't give a hoot if the mainstream accept my choice of lifestyle or not......I am not asking them to accept or join me. So in all, and with a second reading I was even less impressed and saw it as a mainstream effort to put bucks in the pocket before presenting a reality they were not ready to accept, and were too afraid to risk their subscribers not accepting also. Sad, but predictable.

Catalina

 

[Desdemona]

Anelize you got it straight when you said it irritated. It was not just the religious references which irritated me, as I would expect that, but the whole concept of vague representations that no matter what it seemed to come down to, it was portrayed to be play for the bored vanilla population which I do not find myself fitting into. It also irritated in the female hand gestured quotation marks "slave" status which is a pet hate of mine in any circumstance, and usually I find a pet habit of someone not being 100% honest or at the least loving to be the center of attention...just my pet hate but one I find pretentious all the same.

Another area I had difficulty with, and I realise it is mostly because of my own status and definition, was that she identified as slave, played the dumb role of "Master must decide all for me' role to the hilt, except when it didn't suit her and then she pointed out she would refuse to obey or could leave anytime (oh where have we heard that so many times before?!!) and that as slave she held the power in the relationship (and again a familiar ring?).

Now the biggest problem perhaps I had was with the assertion that we would all lose interest in it as a lifestyle or play choice if it were no longer taboo...in other words we do it because we think we are being naughty. Sorry, but that is not my motivation or reason, and apart from legal changes which would ensure the rest of the world had the safety we have in The Netherlands to practice SSC BDSM, I really don't give a hoot if the mainstream accept my choice of lifestyle or not......I am not asking them to accept or join me. So in all, and with a second reading I was even less impressed and saw it as a mainstream effort to put bucks in the pocket before presenting a reality they were not ready to accept, and were too afraid to risk their subscribers not accepting also. Sad, but predictable.

Catalina

Well, you gotta remember, it's TIME magazine. They are going to take the safe route with anything even remotely controversial. Personally, like TNRkitect2b, I'm surprised they were as even handed as they were. I think it's a start. And I stand by my opinion... it's just business.

You know you always have the option of writing a letter to the editor and sharing your concerns. If enough people do so, they might actually print some of them.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well, you gotta remember, it's TIME magazine. They are going to take the safe route with anything even remotely controversial. Personally, like TNRkitect2b, I'm surprised they were as even handed as they were. I think it's a start. And I stand by my opinion... it's just business.

You know you always have the option of writing a letter to the editor and sharing your concerns. If enough people do so, they might actually print some of them.

I seriously doubt they would print anything which disputed the article too much unless they thought it would win them favour. And as I said, I really have no concerns about the mainstream accepting our ways or not, just legal safety for you who live there. That is unlikely to change from one article in TIME unfortunately and requires much bigger lobbying and arguing from an informed standpoint. I think raising the ire of the Bible Belt, Mr. Bush, and others who feel religiously offended by our lives is only going to harm legal changes in a country which publises so much it's devotion to God. Articles such as this one may just be aimed at doing that through raising the awareness of those who can lobby against you, not for your acceptance. For one thing I have to question why they picked the location they did to concentrate the article on when it is recognised as one of the more predominantly religious affiliated areas...do you think they really hoped to make the life of BDSMers more palateable, or was it meant to raise ire and self righteous indignation the neighbourhood is being corrupted under their very noses?

Catalina

 

[WriterDom]

At least he didn't bring up the nut that killed those women a few years ago.

 

[Desdemona]

I seriously doubt they would print anything which disputed the article too much unless they thought it would win them favour. And as I said, I really have no concerns about the mainstream accepting our ways or not, just legal safety for you who live there. That is unlikely to change from one article in TIME unfortunately and requires much bigger lobbying and arguing from an informed standpoint. I think raising the ire of the Bible Belt, Mr. Bush, and others who feel religiously offended by our lives is only going to harm legal changes in a country which publises so much it's devotion to God. Articles such as this one may just be aimed at doing that through raising the awareness of those who can lobby against you, not for your acceptance. For one thing I have to question why they picked the location they did to concentrate the article on when it is recognised as one of the more predominantly religious affiliated areas...do you think they really hoped to make the life of BDSMers more palateable, or was it meant to raise ire and self righteous indignation the neighbourhood is being corrupted under their very noses?



Catalina

Honestly, I think they are just trying to sell magazines.

I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot over it. I live and thrive in the heart of the bible belt along with a hell of alot of other kinksters. I've lived in the bible belt all my life and seriously doubt the tone of this particular article is going to raise anybody's ire. Quite frankly, it takes a hell of a long time to change public opinion in these parts. In my lifetime, I've seen some massive changes in terms of acceptance for gay people and for people of color. It all started small. And, yeah, I'm a glass is half full kind of girl. LOL

 

[BlueSugar]

Does anyone else feel a gradual shift out of the gay/lesbian trend that has been going on for a couple of years... into a bdsm 'trend'?

raising awareness and clearing up myths is one thing ... but I wouldn't want it to become a trend, and have "metro-bdsmers" like there are "metrosexuals" now.

che sara` sara`

 

[niteshade]

You're allowed to be irritated. I did a few eyerolls myself as I read that part, but I just laugh at it because I have a feeling that the author was probably disgusted at being forced to include that crap as well. But then, I live in a town where the first thing they ask new people is "Where do you go to church?" And heavens forbid you actually admit that you don't attend church!!! I think I'm kinda numb to that crap after 6 years of people trying to save me and coworkers telling me how they have begun "submitting" to their husbands after a particularly stirring sermon.

See, now that is just dumb... that kind of stuff just sets a fire in my blood for some reason. Then again, I have been known to invite Jahova's Witnesses to Black Masses when they come to my door.

 

[Desdemona]

See, now that is just dumb... that kind of stuff just sets a fire in my blood for some reason. Then again, I have been known to invite Jahova's Witnesses to Black Masses when they come to my door.

evil wench. LMAO


BlueSugar, yep, I see the trend. Like all trends and fads, it will pass.

 

[niteshade]

evil wench. LMAO


BlueSugar, yep, I see the trend. Like all trends and fads, it will pass.

Who, me? You betcha They only visit me at any given address once; I think it is the idea of someone who looks so wholesomely sweet and innocent proposing such a shocking idea.

I completely agree with you that it is a business however, and I was not only surprised to see such a relatively impartial tone, but to see anything of that nature at all in TIME. I think that, as with all big changes, we must accept the slow advances, and know that with persistence we will gain ground. The Grand Canyon wasn't carved in a year, and I am quite sure the water initially took the path of least resistance.

 

[TNRkitect2b]

See, now that is just dumb... that kind of stuff just sets a fire in my blood for some reason. Then again, I have been known to invite Jahova's Witnesses to Black Masses when they come to my door.

It works well on Mormon's too.... especially if you are very scantily clad when you answer the door.... just be sure to be nice

 

[BlueSugar]

evil wench. LMAO


BlueSugar, yep, I see the trend. Like all trends and fads, it will pass.

yeaah, but I still don't want to see people who think they're doing it right and a rise in abusive relationships because of the idiots in the world, and prices on floggers and toys to go up because of supply in demand, nor do i want Fox or HBO to have some special sitcom about it to raise awareness and all that junk ::sigh::
I'm not ready to "come out!" lol

 

[catalina_francisco]

Honestly, I think they are just trying to sell magazines.

I'm not going to get my knickers in a knot over it. I live and thrive in the heart of the bible belt along with a hell of alot of other kinksters. I've lived in the bible belt all my life and seriously doubt the tone of this particular article is going to raise anybody's ire. Quite frankly, it takes a hell of a long time to change public opinion in these parts. In my lifetime, I've seen some massive changes in terms of acceptance for gay people and for people of color. It all started small. And, yeah, I'm a glass is half full kind of girl. LOL

Yes that is right, I said in an earlier post my view was it was for making them money, not presenting the truth. And as to getting knickers in a knot, my point exactly and why I said I can't see the point in my contacting the editor with my view. I am a firm believer in working toward needed changes, but I am also careful about where I expend my energy on these pursuits as I am not overly blessed with enough energy to waste in areas which will make little to no indent in a long established system....is all about strategy and making a point where it will be listened to and heard. Thankfully I am not living somewhere where F can be imprisoned or charged for doing something consensual.

Catalina

 

[WriterDom]

This was in my legal issues egroup mail.


National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is proud to be mentioned by Time Magazine in an article entitled "Bondage Unbound" by John Cloud in the January 19th issue. To read the article, go to:
http://www.time.com/time/2004/sex/article/bondage_unbound_growing01a.html

It is the policy of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom to perform proactive media outreach in order to destigmatize SM, swing and polyamory activities. We believe this article about SM in Time, with a circulation of over 4 million readers in America, will be a positive step forward for our community.

###

 

[Nightlywanderer42]

I amsorry to say to BlueSugar that there have already been specials on HBO...or was it Showtime. Anyhoo, about 3 years ago, I was watchin late night cable (for a kid brought up in a strict Cathloic home with a Republican Dad...late night weekend cable is a God send..no offense); and onto i think it was Showtime came a special about those in the BDSM lifestyle. However from what friends have informed me and reshaped my badly informed mind, that type of BDSM was in its own way Vanilla.

S&M, like the article talked about is a lot more Vanilla then it's harder core cousin it draws its name from. In past relationships I have definetly done my fair share of scratching, nibbling, biting, and the lesser stuff. But I have yet to cross over into true BDSM type of practices. If, and/or when, I do I have no idea how long I'll do it for.

As for the article, it was written as most articles are in a major magazine, following the age old mantra,"don't piss everyone off". So it shows an even hand in the way it treats the issue. But the couple that is picked seems a little too, "cliche". It seems as if Time is trying to uncover a "taboo" look at an already mainstream image. And I agree that the religious offerings given by the author are a little over the top in a way that makes the author/editor trying to save their skin, from the fanatic-religious, by showing that the BDSM couple are God-fearing, Bible thumpin, Bush loving christians. When I got to that part, I laughed my ass off...well cackled my ass off, and fell onto the floor. The whole section seemed ridiculous in it's contrasting images.

But as for how one treats the Mormon's and Jehova's Witnesses. Two, slightly lesser method's of dispatching them. 1) my older bro greeted a bunch of Mormon's selling bible's by asking them where the Pizza was. And when they got over that "misunderstanding" invited them in to talk about the violence on TV, while we watched Die Hard 3.
2) I was able to get the weirdest look from a Jehova's Witness that approached me as I waited for a bus, when I told her that she was the most beautiful woman that I had ever seen, and I would be overjoyous...if she would be my bride.
I never saw the Mormen or the JW again. Try those out next time you get the chance....though I do want to try the invitation to a Black Mass. ::grins, maliciously::