What is the line between kindness and indulgence in the realm of sexual practices? I read Dan Savage and Mistress Matisse's Columns and Blogs and I find myself pondering the above question quite often. Dan Savage is mostly against bestiality, but very against it when you're tearing up a girl dog. He's generally against publicly flaunting certain kinks, if that means that you're forcing coworkers, family or friends to participate in your kink (omg, I have le not so secret diapers on and I... I... I... could be found out! *gasp* *hard-on*) . And I do see why, it's simply rude. I recently read an article about an British male taking a willing female sex slave and having her trail around on a chain in public. It's kind of like being a nudist outside of a nudist colony - just, well, uncouth.
It is mean and small-minded to denigrate homosexuality of course, but at one time, the prevailing thought was that homosexual people were simply indulging themselves in something unnecessary and amoral. Right now, we have established, in general, that involving outsiders in you and your lover's personal kink is asking for too much indulgence on the part of unwilling bystanders. But sometimes, and I WILL be beheaded for saying this, I'm sure, I vaguely understand when a certain people rant on about people wanting to marry their lamps and their pet gerbils next, in the context of arguing about gay rights. What that camp might be trying to say is "Perhaps we shouldn't forget that line between absolute indulgence and humanity. " There should be a line, we shouldn't indulge ourselves or other human beings in raping animals (actually, I just had the strange image of a lamp fighting off the sexual advances of a male like a Regency era lady... don't you think some lampshades look a bit like a frilly dress? "No, Lord Beckett, I must return to the bedside table, this tryst will ruin me!"), and... {insert here other examples of unindulgable sexual practices that that I can't think of right now}. But I'm annoyingly confused as to what exactly is unnecessary to indulge, in myself and others, and what should be given acceptance and/or dignity in the open.
And, to all the raving, foaming-at-the-mouth liberals that I've met over the years, I don't think I'm ashamed of asking either. There should be some hard and fast rules - it would , and is, remiss of the liberal camp NOT to think up something catchy like "what would Jesus do?"
1 comment:
Doesn't "Perhaps we shouldn't forget that line between absolute indulgence and humanity." present us with a false dichotomy? I suggests that there is something a-human (or unhuman) about the "indulgences". It takes us back to the idea that the flesh is weak and sinful and that the spirit, pure and free, needs none of the sensual desires of the flesh. I'm not sure it's the correct approach.
I suppose it's difficult to say what you're comfortable with seeing in terms of Public Displays of Affection. I'm good with random people snogging in cafes. Less good with people who're supposed to be talking to me snogging in front of me. But that's my line. Your mileage may vary, but I'm not sure that's anything to do with big concepts like Humanity and Morality. Dragging them into whether or not you're happy seeing a man walk his girlfriend walk his dog makes the latter rather petty.
Also intruding here is the idea that being homosexual means saying to everyone "I enjoy anal sex with men", which is apparently what everyone hears. It's more in the realm of "I'm attracted to men." I suppose I'm vaguely saying is that who you have relationships with (sexual orientation) and what you do in said relationships (BDSM and whatnot) is different. Quite easy to distinguish in fact. The former is something people should be able to say out loud and proud, be dignified and all that. Because it's to do with relationships. You want to be able to hold hands in public. What exactly you do behind doors, however, is no one's business because it's between the two of you. I think it's a reasonably easy line to draw.
My logic runs along the lines of relationships being the building blocks of society and it seems reasonable that the bond should be recognised between two people.
Now, of course, there are some grey areas like polyamory since that involves forming multiple bonds.
I think the hard and fast rule would be "Safe, Sane and Consensual" in terms of sexuality. But I'm not sure it's quite as catchy as What Would Jesus Do?
Post a Comment