Rant

I cannot stand arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, or condecension. It is particularly noxious when it comes robed in the garb of "civility" and acts to put itself out as if it has been somehow injured. My friend, morningstar, participates with an unusual group of bloggers in a community that calls itself (for reasons that are not entirely clear) Freedom's Place. She got herself into a bit of a tussle with some there about the use of the word "vanilla" as a descriptor within our community, and that has caused a fair amount of angst. She's apologized, and been way more sweet and accommodating than I would have been under the circumstances. I admit that I don't read there regularly, and don't really know most of the contributors -- I peek in upon occasion... but a day or so ago there was This Bit, and I have been fussing about it ever since.

So. If you do not want to read the rant that has been going on in my head, go somewhere else now.

The person who wrote the "charming" and oh so typically dismissive piece at "Freedom's Place" punched so many of the buttons that society uses to dismiss and marginalize those of us who pursue a lifestyle alternative that is seen as other than the norm. As I read first morningstar's response to footpad, and then the others that followed, I noticed that nobody seemed to find that what he had to say was offensive. Honestly, that surprises me. How dare this person just assume that he has the right to make these judgements without even a scintilla of a question as to whether there is a foundation for the reasoning behind all of this drivel? And why does everyone just go along for the ride, and pat this whiner on the head and chime in with "oh, poor thing..."

So let me just go through my issues:

• The "Freedom's Place" writer states, "I am not in a submissive, nor dominate, relationship...and I want neither. Nor do I particularly want to participate in a community that makes such a relationship, well, important." Such a relationship? The implication behind this must be that it is just "our kind" of relating that is out of bounds. Other relationships, I assume, would be perfectly acceptable to discuss, consider, dissect, encourage, support, and write about at whatever length. Traditional marriages, and all the vagaries and issues associated with them would, presumably, not trouble this individual, and would be entirely acceptable topics of discussion. Never mind that these relationships are all fraught with their own, usually unacknowleged, power exchange, dominance and submission issues. So this is just not good enough. If you are going to disallow one kind of relationship dynamic, then it must be that all relational dynamics must be unacceptable topics of discussion for the blog forum. So, just do not talk about any person with whom you relate, regardless of gender or marital status. Do not discuss children that you may have given birth to or raised. Do not mention any concerns about any family members of any age or relational status. Do not bring up any of the worries or sorrow or joys that may come about as a result of being a human person involved in intimate relationship because that is somehow "inappropriate."

• Then, footpad writes, "Over the years, I've been involved in many online communities, each dedicated to different (technical) issues. I've not squaked about them because I've been truly anonymous with them. However, this one has my RL photo associated with it." So, if you are anonymous, it doesn't matter what a community does? There is only a need to hold yourself or the community to a standard if you have a "face?" Let me make it clear -- if that is the standard, then what I write can be counted on to be absolutely up front, because here at "The Heron Clan," you have our faces, my neck, and my ass on the line. I'm willing to back what goes on here with the full credibility of my own heart, soul, and yes, face. No hiding behind the cowardice of cyber anonymity.

• Then, the "Freedom's Place" writer brings in the children. "And, yet, I find myself hesitating to let my children read the posts herein. Look, I don't really care what you do in the privacy in your own bedroom. Nor do I want you prying into my own." Sigh. Why is it that people do this? Don't they understand that children above the age of about 8 or 9 are simply awash in all sorts of influences that they cannot control anyway, and so they'd best be proactive in discussing and explaining and "parenting" around that, so that the lines of communication remain open for them to have some reasonable influence? Do they live in homes with televisions (Desperate Housewives, Fear Factor, etc.) and radios and I-pods and all the various media? Do their children go out and talk and interact with other children? If, as a parent, you would prefer to not allow your child to see certain things on a certain site or on a certain television program, etc., then take steps to make that happen, but do not bring that out as a club to limit the participation of other adults in that site -- or to constrain the discussions or conversations of those adults. Again, I am uncertain, why this writer has problems with some of the content at Freedom's Place (in relationship to children -- BDSM specific) but not other topics (drinking perhaps or smoking for instance). It's an interesting double standard. Further, I wonder what, exactly, it is that is so horrible about what has been written so far by morningstar, that children of a certain age could not be engaged in talking about it with a responsible, caring parent. Sex and the variations of how humans relate to one another are topics which children and adolescents are appropriately curious about. Parents and caring adults in their lives are the absolute best people for them to discuss these questions with -- assuming these people remain available for those conversations. Sadly, too often, those people make themselves unavailable because they convey that these topics are "off limits."

• Then the "Freedom's Place" writer gets truly incoherent as the ultimate meltdown begins to show up: "My personal hope for this space was to engage in interesting discussion with different people from a variety of cultures different from my own. Yet, what seems to be taking place is more appropriate for the letters page of various and sundry adult publications or a singles bar. A couple of you were pretty defensive about your personal interests. If this community is to become another avenue to reach out, rather than embace, to "non participants," then I need bow out and (as graciously as possible) disassociate my photo and my support from such as place.Look, I frankly don't care what you do behind the bedroom curtains. But I really have to ask if it's completely necessary to lead with your sexual interests. Would you walk into a new situation and say (essentially), "Hi all, I'm a sub and your OK?"I don't think so. IF so, well...um...Thanks for sharing.(I guess.)Is this making any sense?Look, Freedom's Place is a new community and it needs to determine what, precisely, separates it from every other community in the 'Sphere. If it's to become yet another place for soft porn, OK. That's where's it's citizens choose to go. Obviously, there is no desire to be with anyone who is that "different." The only different people this one wants to get to know are the acceptably different sorts. Clearly, the view has been forever distorted by too much time spent with "porn" which has defined the understanding of what it is that WE must be about, and so there is no need to get to know anything about our sort of people. OUR "culture" isn't of any interest, and that has been pre-determined before the trip even gets off the ground. This writer employs exactly the same argument/implication that was used to keep gay and lesbian people in hiding for so long: "must you TELL everyone about your lifestyle?" It is the belief that everything we do is by definition sexual and pornographic and therefore somehow relegatable to the bedroom. Under this rationale, our orientation can be hidden from view and separated from the rest of our lives. If this is the requirement for US, then, why is it not the requirement for everyone else? Why are others allowed to discuss their marital status, their partners, their household living arrangements, etc.? And why are these things not considered to be inherently sexual? Yes, some of what goes on with BDSM is sexy and sexual. I'll not deny it. However, as I recall, some of what I did as a "vanilla" wife and mother was sexy and sexual, too. If we are going to disallow everything that hints of sex in relationships, then why is it that we do not admonish the "vanillas" in our society to keep all references to their lifestyle out of sight? Why is it OK for them to openly declare that they are wives and husbands; to flash titles like Mr. and Mrs.; to go about proudly boasting that they've given birth to two, three, four or more children (clear evidence of having participated in vaginal intercourse). Why is it that we have no problem at all with the clearly erotic celebration of traditional marriages and the power exchange oriented religious/traditional wedding vows that follow the form:

Priest say unto the Man:
Wilt the have this Woman to be thy wedded wife, to live together after God's
ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt the love her, comfort her,
honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and forsaking all other, keep
thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?
The Man shall answer: I
will.
Then shall the Priest say to the Woman: Wilt the have this man to be
thy wedded husband, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of
Matrimony? Wilt the obey him, and serve him, love, honour, and keep him in
sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto him, so
long as ye both shall live?

I'd submit that the "perverted-perception" of all of this is in this writer's mind. Not ours.

I imagine I'll not be invited to write at "Freedom's Place," but that's OK. It's a hell of a lot more honest right here.

swan