The Love and Fidelity Network, national umbrella for campus chastity clubs like Princeton’s Anscombe Society, has issued a press release opposing Harvard’s new BDSM group:
PRINCETON, NJ – Harvard University’s formal recognition of the “Harvard College Munch” last week comes as bad news for students seeking a healthy sexual culture and reasoned debated about human sexuality. Munch is a BDSM (short for bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism) club for college students.
“The Love and Fidelity Network opposes Harvard University’s formal recognition and funding of a group that seeks to associate human sexuality with violence, oppression, and humiliation,” Director of Programs Caitlin Seery said. “Universities should foster an environment where the dignity and beauty of sexuality is honored and affirmed – and where reasoned debate is welcomed among those of goodwill who disagree over what constitutes the true dignity and beauty of human sexuality. Groups like Munch, however, do not seek to participate in that important debate. Rather, BDSM groups dishonor and degrade human sexuality precisely by associating it with violence and humiliation.”
“Our opposition isn’t about banning groups with whom we disagree or censoring private behavior. We support the recognition of many groups with whom we disagree precisely because we think an honest debate about how best to honor the dignity and beauty of sexuality is needed. It is about whether Harvard University should subsidize the promotion of violent and abusive behavior, which endangers all students, particularly women, both psychologically and physically. Consent does not make a violent, abusive, or humiliating act suddenly non-violent, non-abusive, or non-humiliating,” Seery explained. “The bottom line is this: If you think there isn’t enough violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should support the recognition and funding of groups dedicated to associating sexuality with these social evils. If you think that there is already too much violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should join us in asking Harvard to reconsider its support for this group.”
December 7th, 2012 | 4:29 pm
I was walking through Harvard Square last Friday evening when I saw a news team reporting on “Harvard’s new and kinky student club.”
I had no idea what they were referring to until now.
December 7th, 2012 | 5:16 pm
If you think that there is already too much violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should join us in asking Harvard to reconsider its support for this group.
This is an argument for getting rid of fraternities, since colleges and universities appear powerless to stop hazing, which so often involves violence, abuse, and humiliation.
December 7th, 2012 | 9:23 pm
The problem with the Love and Fidelity Network’s opposition is that they assume that the things we in the SM or BDSM community do are all violence and humiliation. They do not know nor wish to understand that there can be great love and respect even when there is infliction of pain or subjugation. Humans have a long history of appreciating ritualized pain. The Christian flagellants have for centuries understood the transformative power and consciousness raising experience of repetitive flogging and whipping. Is it ironic that many modern Christian denominations espouse a doctrine of male domination and female subjugation, while being offended by people that put this in to practice? Many people (but not all) in SM communities enjoy these types of Dominant and submissive role play (though the gender roles are not always traditional) and they benefit in their own ways from the special bonds that can be enjoyed through submissive service and loving dominance.
It would be wiser for them to walk a mile a in our shoes before judging us. Or perhaps they might understand better the admonition; “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
December 8th, 2012 | 2:25 am
This group advertises itself as “alternative sexuality.” So, as is often the case, the argument is not made for its intrinsic worth, but for some niche that the supposedly traditional campus groups are woefully ignorant of. The group campaigns on its supposed alteriority, but never has a plan in place to relinquish itself once it becomes normal.
Otherwise why is this is a special interest group that constitutes something worthy of campus funds? Is there a “drunk heterosexual fornication” campus interest group receiving funding? Obviously not.
ChrisMarks conveniently for him ignores the point being made. It is not aberrant sexuality that is the issue, but rather official university endorsement and funding of such. It goes, of course, without saying that if such groups really were “alternative,” they would never be so conventional as to seek out official funding and recognition. This is not about sex per se but about forcing Christians to involve themselves in scandal. Isn’t it?
ChrisMarks invites us to “walk a mile a [sic] in our shoes.” Well, I’d actually rather not. Does that make me a bigot? Probably, in Leftworld.
Is it not true that there are pathetic little campus groups for every single kind of sexuality except the normal, procreative kind?
December 8th, 2012 | 5:27 am
> BDSM groups dishonor and degrade human sexuality precisely by associating it with violence and humiliation.
No, BDSM groups do not do that. It is only the Love and Fidelity Network that, out of ignorance or malice, associates consensual BDSM with abuse. So much for ‘honest debate’.
December 8th, 2012 | 7:36 am
As Prof. J. Budziszewski warned (1998 First Things magazine): “Things are getting worse very quickly now. The list of what we are required to approve is growing every longer.”
Can it be that, through ignorance of moral progress, we are now condemned to repeat every possible human error and perversion? Will slavery be next?
December 8th, 2012 | 9:29 am
Is David Novak a “Devil’s Advocate,” a present day Jonathan Swift, exposing each and every hypocrisy?
December 8th, 2012 | 10:18 am
I’m reading about BDSM and the Love & Fidelity Network for the first time. The most depressing thing about the Love & Fidelity Network’s letter is that they feel the need to rationalize what’s wrong with the Harvard College Munch. It’s depressing that there’s a need in Cambridge to do anything more than just reprint the Munch press release and leave it at that.
December 8th, 2012 | 11:39 am
My error, for which I apologize: “David Nickol” not “David Novak”.
December 8th, 2012 | 11:48 am
David Nickol: “This is an argument for getting rid of fraternities, since colleges and universities appear powerless to stop hazing, which so often involves violence, abuse, and humiliation.”
A move I would wholeheartedly support.
December 8th, 2012 | 4:00 pm
@Douglas Johnson: I agree. This is sadly a sign of the times that there is not a clear understanding of what constitutes true human dignity and appropriate interpersonal relationships.
@ChrisMarks: You obviously do not understand Christian doctrine if you think it espouses “domination” and “subjugation”. While I would not consider myself an expert on all denominations, I will say that the pastoral relationship that IS espoused by Christian doctrine bears no relation to what you seem to think, nor does the type of spousal relationship that Christianity promotes. To put it on par with what BDSM groups espouse demonstrates a very narrow and skewed world view.
“judge not lest ye be judged”–I see nothing wrong with openly and honestly voicing disagreement with views that one finds objectionable, especially in matters pertaining to understandings of human dignity. The purposeful infliction of pain to derive some sort of pleasure does not show respect to a person’s dignity, even if self-inflicted. Even role playing for the purpose of sexual gratification is a means of denying the intrinisic value of a person, because to do so indicates that person is not enough, in and of themselves, to be worthy of the love that should be part of sexual relationships. To engage in sexual acts without any loving attachment to the individual likewise turns the person into merely an object from which to derive gratification. It is not “love” of the person that brings the satisfaction, but “love” of something other than the person, or something apart from who that person is truly. This is why BDSM activities should be decried as aberrant. If people think treating their loved ones like that is acceptable, what will they think of as acceptable behavior toward others they do not “love”?
On a separate, but somewhat related note: this is why libertarian views are not persuasive to me. We are the same people, just in different environments, as we go through our daily lives. To pretend that the activities of individuals behind closed doors have no bearing on those outside of the closed doors is naive. Those ideas that seem acceptable behind closed doors are part of what drives the person as he or she travels through and interacts with the world at large. So, they are not as harmless as they may seem, since they cannot be contained within a narrow, confined physical space. They have an influence on the other thoughts and ideas of the individual and thus spill over into civil society in unintended ways.
I will preemptively say to ChrisMarks that, “Love thy neighbor as thy self” does not give biblical authority to engage in BDSM activities even if one really likes such things.
I agree that there is disorder (not necessarily in the DSM-V R etc. sense, although I think that too is debatable) in the pursuit of BDSM lifestyle choices. Harvard can hardly be expected to put up a road block to such groups since it lacks any kind of moral authority from which to derive that sort of judgment. I am pleased, however, that there are groups such as the Love & Fidelity Network to draw attention to such things and pray for growth in their ministry.
It would be heartening to see Harvard’s Divinity School host a symposium about the proper Christain understanding of human dignity and sexuality.
December 8th, 2012 | 4:36 pm
If you think that there is already too much violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, then you should join us in asking Harvard to reconsider its support for this group.”
Well, I do think there is too much violence, abuse, and humiliation in the world, but somehow that doesn’t move me to join ranks with the Love and Fidelity Network against the Harvard BDSM Club. (Although I think Harvard is embarrassing itself on the matter.) There is something truly bizarre to lament the “violence, abuse, and suffering” of those who, with full consent (and limits such as “safe words”) participate in BDSM. If you rushed in to save them in the middle of a session, they’d be very annoyed! There are many grounds on which the Love and Fidelity Network might have objected to the Harvard BDSM Club, but concern about too much suffering in the world really isn’t one of them.
By the way, according to Wikipedia, the Fifty Shades of Grey “series has sold over 60 million copies worldwide, with book rights having been sold in 37 countries, and set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time, selling even faster than the Harry Potter series in paperback.” To those who are upset by BDSM, that should be a lot more troubling than a small number of people forming a club at Harvard.
December 8th, 2012 | 11:54 pm
Once again, the folks who disapprove of BDSM have found a way to sound like complete and utter fools, who will undoubtedly be ignored.
December 9th, 2012 | 12:35 am
Why am I reminded of a woman who, having escaped the BDSM network, recounted how she had been tortured into submission first, and afterwards would have said she voluntarily submitted to everything she was subjected to?
December 9th, 2012 | 1:33 am
I enjoyed reading the comments on this post. I agree with David Nickol that we should be concerned about the Fifty Shades of Grey series, though that does not equate to saying we shouldn’t spend any time pausing to reflect and react to Harvard’s decision to support the BDSM group, unless Harvard has lost all cultural currency and symbolic value, which it hasn’t. It is true though that S & M has erupted into the mainstream, not just with this book’s success, but with popular songs such as those sung by Lady Gaga and Rihanna. It lends credence to my friend Gil Costello’s belief that the world is a sado-masochistic matrix: “The realm of Satan’s rule, the world John insists on referencing for our spiritual edification, is in my view first and foremost a sadomasochistic realm. It exists in juxtaposition to the Glory of God revealed in his Creation, especially in the peak of his creation, the human person, exemplified in his saints. What is elemental in this configuration is to recognize that pain and suffering for one’s own willful pursuits in opposition to God’s will is always sadomasochistic.” One thing I think when I see this is that nothing we say can be trusted about sex when this is our public expression. The debates for instance about gay marriage should be framed within this backdrop of an erosion of conceptual structures for sexual self-control. It is also alarming. I don’t think Roger Scruton is alarmist when he writes: “Nobody could say that the growth of the pornographic culture is a crime comparable to the crimes described by those writers, though, like those crimes, it is a crime against humanity. Nevertheless pornography has moved of its own accord to that first stage on the road of desecration, in which the face disappears, and the human being disintegrates into an assemblage of body parts. My own view is that we should see this as a warning…” (The Face of God: The Gifford Lectures 2010, (2012), pg.111). It sometimes seems to me like we have not been totally sobered by the 20th century but that we are perhaps ready for a new ‘gnostic mass movement of modernity’ which will have a strong sexual component to it.
December 9th, 2012 | 12:15 pm
@ Patrick Just to be clear, I did not invite you to walk in my shoes so much as to request you stop judging me until you have done so… There is no question that SM and what we do is not for everyone. I do not understand what your frame of reference is for all the alternative talk… The Committee on Student Life approved 15 new student organizations including the Harvard College Comics Club… There is no “need” to be alternative to be a club so now they are a club they can get coffee, soda and cookies for their meetings, about $20 in food every month if they meet that frequently during the academic year. This is usually paid for by a student activity fee so in essence the college is giving them back their own money for a group activity – Which by the way is merely a discussion group not a “sex club”.
@ Fr. Guido I could quote much scripture and point out the many Christian’s that follow the Husband is the head of household doctrine and the Father is superior to the mother, in Church and at home but if you are not well acquainted with these then nothing I point to will alter your view on this.
However, since it is likely that you have had very little exposure to SM perhaps it is here where I might be able to share information, which would be new to you about Consensual SM which is what we are talking about here. NOT criminal extremes such as those @Mary has referenced.
The are several precepts of SM which dictate how one should behave. The oldest is SSC, it stands for Safe Sane Consensual. The most important of these is consensual, everything that happens must occur by mutual agreement between both parties. So this is a key premise.
Where you say ” …to be worthy of the love that should be part of sexual relationships. To engage in sexual acts without any loving attachment to the individual likewise turns the person into merely an object from which to derive gratification.”
I agree in large part but what your conclusion does not follow because there is plenty of love between SM partners. And many, perhaps most of us also have committed loving relationships. You and others see SM as devoid of love and this is a logical fallacy. As a community, we also go to church, serve on PTA’s and commit random acts of kindness, we are largely just like yourself except on occasion we enjoy something a little different in the bedroom.
The part I disagree with is the Judeo-Christian view that all sex must be procreative or it is sinful. My partner (a Harvard Theological Grad) says if we were to make laws based on the bible then male masturbation which results in “spilling seed on the ground” should also logically be a crime, from a biblical view this is akin to abortion.
Sex is meant to be bonding between the parties, it is meant to hold them together long enough to raise offspring and the statistics worldwide and across cultures support this view. Lately, I have seen and heard many Christian denominations come around to this way of understanding the human experience.
If you and the followers of your God wish to practice differently then I say “may God bless you”. When you tell me how I should live and that your God trumps my beliefs and practice, then I say “How arrogant of you to ‘divine’ that which is holy and proper for me”. If I do harm to you then you have no right to interfere with me. This is how I understand Love thy neighbor as thyself.
Respect me and my beliefs and I shall respect you.
December 9th, 2012 | 12:25 pm
@David Nickol I agree completely. And you are correct about Fifty Shades of Grey and how many in the SM community view it. It is poorly written, an inarticulate description of SM or BDSM, and barely a passable story. That it has caught the attention of so many people suggests that there is something interesting in the premise, arousing and exotic.
The SM community is more afraid than anything that the story wil lead (vanilla) people who do not understand the risks of some behaviors to do actual harm. I explain what I do by saying I frequently hurt my lover but I never harm her. The “Fifty” books are trashy romance novels and not how to books. There are plenty of good books about how to learn SM out there.
BTW, it should be pointed out also that there are many people that currently dally in bits of SM to spice up their marriages who would not be generally considered to be Sadomasochists.
December 9th, 2012 | 12:31 pm
Clarification:
“Lately, I have seen and heard many Christian denominations come around to this way of understanding the human experience, that sex can be procreative, enjoyable and supportive of long term happiness and that these recreational experiences of sex are not sinful.”
December 9th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
Why is it that you derive pleasure from another’s pain? Christian teaching, as well as many other religious and philosophical traditions, urges that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but you taken on a squarely dominance role. Christian teaching also is that our desires can be deceptive and corrrupted and lead us astray. Many have killed their partner in S & M without intending to. I have heard the police have given courses in how not to kill your partner during S & M in San Francisco. If you are honest with yourself, is the possibility of harm or even death, despite being guarded against, nevertheless part of the “spice”? Perhaps you are playing with a fire you think you can control but which serves a different master? You accuse a priest of not knowing the Scripture, and it is probably true that many priests don’t know the Scripture, but his point is obviously true and rooted in Scripture. It is absurd to liken the biologically rooted role differentiation taught by the Catholic church and some other churches with S & M. For one thing men are taught by Christian Scripture to treat their wives bodies as they would their own and to pour out their lives for them like Christ did for the church. For another thing, Christian teaching embraces biology, not only by embracing biological gender difference, but also the integrity of the human body, whereas you take pleasure in awakening the natural biological warning signs of the body when a normal reaction to pain is to take warning and avoid it. You quote the Scripture where Jesus says judge not lest you be judged but of course do not quote where it says the spiritual man judges everything but he himself is not judged. Your quotation suggests a superficial knowledge of Scripture. This quote is one of the most popular and well known quotes in modern times, though of course its context in the passage and in the context of the rest of Scripture is not well known. I am barred from afflicting intentional pain on my fellow human beings for my pleasure because they are made in the image of God and so of course I disdain your proselytizing for this defacement of the human and judge it as morally wrong.
December 9th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
Quite astounding how some Christians forever try to mount a moral high horse, considering the immeasurable suffering their convictions and zeal have already caused, and still cause.
There are about two dozen religious student clubs at Harvard. Nobody begrudges their place in the sun, even though there are plenty of people who do not share the views they espouse.
Now there is a single club to cater to students who are interested in kinky sex. Is it really too hard to leave them alone, just because you happen to dislike sexual diversity? Must you at all cost demonize anything and everything that you fail to understand?
December 9th, 2012 | 7:37 pm
@David Alexander I did not accuse anyone of not knowing scripture, I think that is an unfair characterization.
There are many who will not understand my points here, either because I am not articulate enough or they do not have a frame of reference which could allow them to understand my suggestions. I will agree there are dangerous things that happen in society… some sex related and others not… many young people practice auto-asphyxiation and die as a result and there are some SM people that do similar dangerous things and harm happens. I do not condone these and every death is unfortunate in the abstract and devastating in the personal. As I teach courses in SM I am one of many that supports Safe Sane and Consensual but there are unintended consequences in all of life, we must choose to accept responsibility for ourselves each day we leave the house, have sex with another, drive to work, etc.
I remain true to my primary point:
“If you and the followers of your God wish to practice differently then I say “May God bless you” (sincerely). When you tell me how I should live and that your God trumps my beliefs and practice, then I say “How arrogant of you to ‘divine’ that which is holy and proper for me”. And I would refer you to Jesus teachings on this point and not to the dogma of the institutions that have arisen in the 2000 years since.
I will add what I expect will be my final thought here. I am fond of Jesus teachings, but I am entirely less taken with his followers. My favorite prayers are the Serenity Prayer and the following:
God, please protect me from your followers.
I wish there were more enlightened Christian leaders and followers…
I remain,
ChrisMarks
December 10th, 2012 | 1:02 am
ChrisMarks,
I took this to mean you were saying that Fr. Guido was not well acquainted with Scripture. Should I have understood this differently?:
“@ Fr. Guido I could quote much scripture and point out the many Christian’s that follow the Husband is the head of household doctrine and the Father is superior to the mother, in Church and at home but if you are not well acquainted with these then nothing I point to will alter your view on this.”
You wrote: “And I would refer you to Jesus teachings on this point and not to the dogma of the institutions that have arisen in the 2000 years since.” I was referring you to those teachings and implying that you don’t know them like you think you do yet you feel confident you do enough to say that Fr. Guido is not well acquainted with Scripture.
You assert that sado-masochistic sex is good and you teach others to do it. If you understood the Scriptural references I was referring to, I am confident you would not argue that Jesus’ view is complementary to yours on the subject. So either Jesus or you are right, if you contradict one another, but not both of you. You would like to think that Jesus embraces a libertarian view of morality when he says “Judge not lest you be judged” but I am saying you are misusing that statement out of context and falsely claiming Jesus’ complacence. Surely you must have some suspicion that some of Jesus’ other statements do not mesh well with your particular take on this quote. It may not be anger however but a tear with which He reacts to you. You suggest Christians are prideful for not believing in the goodness, spirit, soul, and body, of S&M but let us be a sign to you witnessing to a truth you deny. Or can no one know the truth and you be in error on the point? Must no one speak a counter word to your belief? What if your belief is wrong?
December 10th, 2012 | 6:13 am
David Nickol writes:
You should be able to do anything you want if you do it with full consent and it supposedly harms no one but yourself, right?
So why then is it illegal to sell yourself into bondage?
December 10th, 2012 | 6:28 am
Chris Marks writes:
Have at it! Pretty much any First Things reader (at least the ones that don’t think you should be allowed to sell yourself into bondage) could tell you the chapter and verses if you need any help. Why don’t you start with Ephesians 5:22-33 and relying only on that text in full, please tell us why it is morally wrong. Also, please tell us what moral tradition you are using to make your thesis (because if it’s just how you think and feel then you’d have to admit it’s an equally valid argument if someone says they think and feel the opposite).
December 10th, 2012 | 7:28 am
Many who choose to sin or go against the holiness and truth of God have forgotten what it is , to live like a child of God , a God for whom nothing is impossible !
Thus, the many persons who have chosen His will ,have not corrupted theirs , by assenting to the enemy , can intercede on behalf of all , who have chosen the enemy will of lies , violence and degradation, at whatever level, by ordering the enemy , on behalf of the other – ‘ I choose to be set free , choose to forgive any and all who have played a role in your presence in my life ‘ and turning to The Lord – thanking You Most Holy Trinity, for making us Your children , in Lord Jesus and invite in the Holy Spirit , into many hearts , to feel The Father Love flowing in , to help many to run to You , from the bondage of the enemy ‘ !
Joshua walks around the campus , or knowing God is beyond time and space , wherever one happens to be , to call on His mercy and love even into all stages of one’s life, even all the way to Adam and that of the other – let us get busy and get the saints to be too !
Hopefully, one day soon , many more would discover what is the joy and strengt in Christian / Catholic life and that every act of choosing against the truth and identity God has gives us , in His Son , is utter foolishness and ingratitude !
December 10th, 2012 | 7:59 am
“I explain what I do by saying I frequently hurt my lover but I never harm her”
You hurt her because you love her. If you did not hurt her, that would show you did not really love her. It doesn’t really harm her, in fact it is good for her to be hurt (by you) from time to time. It no doubt makes her a better person and lover (for you). “Vanilla” people will never understand when she says “he wouldn’t hurt me if he didn’t love me”. She probably deserves it, too—isn’t that how it goes?
December 10th, 2012 | 8:55 am
@Douglas Johnson “if you are not well acquainted” does not equate to “you are ignorant of”.
I have no opinion on Jesus’ view of SM or recreational sex, and a hypothetical discussion of this would just be silly. However, my larger point which I have repeated, now for the third time, is that you should do as your God and conscience dictates for you. Up to the point where your God and conscience start making decisions about how I should behave in my bedroom.
This is starting to remind me of the birth control argument. The Catholic Church says don’t use birth control yet close to 90% of Catholics do use birth control. Jesus taught tolerance and compassion yet (many) Christian denominations are rabidly intolerant. And as has been said too many times before, look back at what your religion has wrought over the course of history and choose wisely about where and how you proceed.
I am not sure how you are now equating “selling oneself into bondage” with recreational and loving sex… Slavery is illegal. Anyone who does not understand this and acts otherwise deserves 25 years to meditate on the subject within the confines of a small grey cell. If you are equating SM bondage with actual slavery then you are grossly mistaken.
Lets say that I am using Buddhist, Humanist, Unitarian, Democratic, Kantian, moral traditions…
Do as you wish as long as you don’t harm anyone else…
@peg – I am not sure of your point but suffice it to say she deserves my love as she is a wonderful woman.
My partner also loves what I do to her, I would not do it if she did not love it. We bond intensely in part because what we do requires intense focus, deep communication, respect, and trust. And of course it also turns us on… I should also mention that we do enjoy each other in the old-fashioned vanilla ways of making love.
By the way, she is a feminist, and a scholar with two advanced degrees. She also thinks I am wasting my time here and since those that have responded directly have ignored my main point I am inclined to agree.
My intention in writing was not to challenge scripture, or engage in deep theological debate beyond one main point. May God Bless you and keep you away from my bedroom.
Cheers!
December 10th, 2012 | 8:59 am
Dear Readers and Writers,
I am unsubscribed. Thank you for entertaining my thoughts and discussions.
From this point forward it is fruitless to address me directly or to assume anything about my absence from further debate.
I wish you well in your journey.
ChrisMarks
December 10th, 2012 | 9:26 am
You should be able to do anything you want if you do it with full consent and it supposedly harms no one but yourself, right?
Douglass Johnson,
No, I am afraid I can’t agree with you on that one.
December 10th, 2012 | 9:49 am
Chris Marks,
You can ignore my previous comment to you; in fact, I wish I had not written it because I have a sincere question for you and your answer might help me understand a book I just finished reading at breakfast.
With regard to sexual practices only, do you personally feel that you have ever experienced what Paul said he experienced in Romans 7:15 (“I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate”)?
Believe me, I am not trying to sucker you into an argument with that question. I promise not to argue whatever it is you write on the matter. Please note, I am not asking what you think of how others use 7:15, nor am I asking you to admit that something about the BDSM is wrong or that anything you do is wrong. For the purposes of my question, I really don’t care about any of that at all.
I honestly just want to know if, with regards to sex, you have ever experienced what Paul says he experienced. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to answer that question straight without protecting yourself from others with an argument, but if you can just answer it straight, then great.
December 10th, 2012 | 10:49 am
David Nickol writes:
I responded to David saying:
And then David responded to the above saying:
David, could you please reconcile your disagreement with your statement that it is bizarre to lament people who participate in BDSM with full consent?
December 10th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
David, could you please reconcile your disagreement with your statement that it is bizarre to lament people who participate in BDSM with full consent?
Douglass Johnson,
Where do you find in what I wrote the implied principle: “You should be able to do anything you want if you do it with full consent and it supposedly harms no one but yourself”?
Presumably you think I believe that, but did I say anything of the kind? I would assume most people who do not believe in putting video cameras up in the nation’s bedrooms to monitor all sexual behavior would grant to consenting adults wide latitude in determining what acts to perform in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But that simply doesn’t translate into, “You should be able to do anything you want if you do it with full consent and it supposedly harms no one but yourself.”
Let me say that in my opinion, there cannot be a serious, productive discussion of BDSM in First Thoughts. For those who believe that sex must take place only inside of marriage, it’s pretty much a pointless discussion, although of course there is nothing to prevent married couples from engaging in BDSM. But a good discussion would require looking at the place of dominance and submission in human sexuality and acknowledging that it’s there quite naturally.
December 10th, 2012 | 2:49 pm
Chris Marks,
(or whomever is still reading)
The “judge not” Scripture has been misused over and over again to mean “don’t come to any moral conclusions about anything.” Is this what you belive Jesus taught?
If so, then why did he then, in the very next passage in Matthew 7, for example, recommend a procedure for getting oneself ready to point out a sin to a brother?
I found a rather good essay on the subject here:
http://www.jasonstaples.com/blog/2009/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged-21
December 10th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
@peg – Interesting, very interesting. I have often heard the “hurt but not harm” argument, but yours is first in which hurt has been advanced as proof of love. That is some fuel for thought, thank you.
December 10th, 2012 | 4:27 pm
What I think is interesting is the fact that BDSM has come up with a number of phrases and definitions – “safe words”, etc – which are clearly an attempt to put boundaries on activities which have as their foundation such words as “bondage.”
So then, one BDSM culture acknowledges that there is another BDSM culture that uses “unsafe” words. And presumably the BDSM culture has a view on other sexual cultures such as NAMBLA, for example – the consensual model type only, of course. Well, what is it? Are they content to ‘stay out of someone else’s bedroom’ – to let them practice what they want – in those cases?
December 10th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
@RedChakra, I hope you are joking.
December 10th, 2012 | 10:57 pm
If this is not perversion, what is?
Coprophagy? Swinging? Orgies?
Why not snuffing? If it’s consensual?
This is to sex what the Roman gladiatorial combats were to sport. It is a sign of utter boredom with what is healthy; as the Romans, I’m sure, would have been bored by a good healthy wrestling match. The addict needs more, needs the fix provided by what is sick, twisted, shameful, disgusting. Spare us the defenses. Tell your mother and your grandmother what you do. Or don’t — don’t do that. Spare them the shame.
December 11th, 2012 | 9:13 am
David Alexander –
I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’m neither a Christian nor do I have any interest in BDSM. That said…
That specific point’s a little simplistic. You can’t treat everyone as you would be treated. I mean, I really don’t want anyone to serve me mushrooms, but according to my wife I’ve gotten pretty good at sautéing them. Since she enjoys them, I sometimes make them for her.
And especially when it comes to the bedroom, there are some fairly obvious things that, on average, the different sexes differentially prefer. My wife is not anatomically equipped to enjoy what I enjoy, and vice versa – and good thing, too.
There are a lot of rock-climbing and parachuting accidents, too; many fatal. That doesn’t automatically mean rock climbing or parachuting are a morally-invalid means of recreation.
So, if BDSM is wrong, it’s not wrong on those grounds. Arguments about psychology, lack of respect, long-term relationship issues, something like that.
December 11th, 2012 | 9:17 am
Fr. Guido –
Funny. A lot of priests and pastors seem to have no trouble accepting the idea that people can go to church every Sunday but act completely differently the rest of the week. They lament it, of course, but nobody claims it’s impossible.
December 11th, 2012 | 10:01 am
For what it’s worth, I would like to respond to ChrisMarks, but I’m afraid he’s been too prolific in his posts for the time I have available to give an adequate response to everything. I will say that I think he is misinterpreting scripture if he thinks that there is to be found support for BDSM within scripture, and if he thinks it is hypocritical for Christians to speak of submission on the one hand and decry BDSM on the other. I think he was injecting his understanding of submission from a BDSM perspective when the biblical terminology has a quite different meaning.
I was assuming we were discussing Consensual BDSM activity, but don’t see where that makes a difference in the point I was trying to make that such behavior distorts the proper understanding of human sexuality and relationships. I don’t doubt that many people who engage in BDSM are in otherwise loving, committed relationships or may be people prominent in various communities, but that seems beside the point of whether BDSM is an affront to the dignity of ourselves and our fellow human beings. Lest you think I am throwing stones while living in a glass house, I will readily acknowledge I have my own demons to contend with, but there is no club at Harvard to support, promote, and encourage them, nor would I want there to be. We are all sinners. We are also all children of God, and as such we are called to love each other in a dignified way and according to how God loves us. It’s a tall order and we often fail. But loving someone does not mean sitting idly by to let them commit errors and bring others into error. As another poster alluded to, it’s easy for us to rationalize our behavior and allow all sorts of license in what we do, but just because we feel good about it doesn’t mean it’s pleasing to God.
I think it is worthwhile contemplating Jesus’ opinion on SM and recreational sex and I would encourage you to do so. I think it would help. (Yes, I realize he did not mention either specifically). Prayerful contemplation of scripture is very enlightening and a great challenge to our easy assumptions about how we conduct our lives. We should all be wary of “recent trends” in human sexuality…we live in a very, overtly, sexualized society and there is nothing good that comes of it. “Improvements” upon “old-fashioned, Vanilla” sex are really distractions moving us away from truly loving, dignified and respectful relationships that need no qualifications. I spent several years working with people who were essentially victims of our over-sexualized culture (in the much broader sense than what BDSM encompasses) and it was obvious how it easily breeds another generation of scarred individuals.
In sum, I think it is a mistake for Harvard to lend official support to a BDSM club. I don’t, however, see how they could not give their stamp of approval (cynical, I know). It’s disappointing to see that such a club exists at a university of Harvard’s reputation. I think BDSM is contrary to the dignified human sexuality that is supported by Christian, and specifically Catholic teaching.
December 11th, 2012 | 10:56 am
Aren’t Christian married couples allowed to engage in sexual fantasies together?
December 11th, 2012 | 11:36 am
Fr.Guido – “Dignity” is a rather fraught term. For example, do you agree with Leon Kass? He writes:
“Worst of all from this point of view are those more uncivilized forms of eating, like licking an ice cream cone–a catlike activity that has been made acceptable in informal America but that still offends those who know eating in public is offensive. … Eating on the street–even when undertaken, say, because one is between appointments and has no other time to eat–displays [a] lack of self-control: It beckons enslavement to the belly. … Lacking utensils for cutting and lifting to mouth, he will often be seen using his teeth for tearing off chewable portions, just like any animal. … This doglike feeding, if one must engage in it, ought to be kept from public view, where, even if we feel no shame, others are compelled to witness our shameful behavior.”
In short, I’m willing to at least entertain the notion that people can understand ‘dignity’ in rather different ways from how I – or you – do.
December 11th, 2012 | 2:52 pm
“There are a lot of rock-climbing and parachuting accidents, too; many fatal. That doesn’t automatically mean rock climbing or parachuting are a morally-invalid means of recreation.”
If one’s rock-climbing equipment fails, that’s a morally neutral event. If one’s equipment fails becuae you used it improperly, then that’s a tragedy. If your equipment fails because someone else used it improperly then that’s a crime.
if your equipment fails because someone else pushed it to the limit in order to get a thrill, then that’s a disordered relationship. If you participated willingly, then you were in it less for the mountain climbing, and more for trying to extract meaning from the experience.
In order to shoehorn “mountain climbing” in to BSDM in order to justify a phrase like: “Many have killed their partner in S & M without intending to,” you’d have to argue: “Many have killed their partner in rock-climbing – by cutting off their air, for example – without intending to.”
December 11th, 2012 | 2:56 pm
“In short, I’m willing to at least entertain the notion that people can understand ‘dignity’ in rather different ways from how I – or you – do.”
Ray, you’ve got a straw man on your hands.
That other people have different ‘understandings’ of dignity has never been in question.
December 11th, 2012 | 3:08 pm
“Aren’t Christian married couples allowed to engage in sexual fantasies together?”
A difficult question to answer, for sure. And I’m not interested in hearing specifics ;) But part of the response must be that the Christian couple acts according to Christian understanding of the person. Sexual expression isn’t a compartmentalized body of teaching. Where the other person begins to be treated as merely a tool of my pleasure and my excitement, then the answer to this question is no.
Where the other person begins to be treated as less than royalty, less than a daughter or son of God, then no.
December 11th, 2012 | 4:01 pm
JDD – Why are you limiting rock-climbing and parachuting deaths to just when “equipment fails”? How about when people just plain make mistakes?
December 11th, 2012 | 4:57 pm
“Why are you limiting rock-climbing and parachuting deaths to just when “equipment fails”? How about when people just plain make mistakes?”
I gave four different circumstances for equipment failing, only one of which had no moral component. Mistakes have a moral component, and persons who make mistakes have moral culpability.
December 11th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
A difficult question to answer, for sure. And I’m not interested in hearing specifics ;)
JDD,
I believe I can get specifics past the moderator.
A husband comes home from work, and his wife answers the door in a French maid costume. She says, “Your vife hass gone to veezeet sa mère and she says I must vait on you hand and foot!” They have the genius of Nichols and May and they carry on the pretense the whole evening and eventually into the bedroom.
December 11th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
David Nickol,
Boring. But I will point out that you just used an example of a husband and wife ‘fantasizing together’ about *not* being together.
December 11th, 2012 | 11:49 pm
PS This may give you comfort from Newsweek:
“And anyone concerned that the munch is a sign of rampant campus promiscuity can rest easy. In an informal video survey by The Harvard Crimson asking students whether they would rather join Munch or the pro-abstinence Harvard College Anscombe Society, support was surprisingly evenly split between the two.”
Join whichever you like, just be pleasant about it, please.
December 12th, 2012 | 10:34 am
Chris Marks,
Do you really 1) consider Newsweek to be a good source of assurance, and 2) believe that students who are questioned about their sexual practices on video a) consistently give their real opinion, and b) reliably follow it in private?
I’d be interested in hearing your response to BSDM groups that don’t use “safe words”. Problem, or no problem?
December 12th, 2012 | 11:51 am
JDD-
Sure, but it’s incumbent upon Fr. Guido to explicate and argue for his conception of dignity, not just assume all share it.
But a different level of culpability than a direct effort of will. And this still avoids the main point – fatal mistakes are possible in rock climbing, parachuting, and some forms of BDSM. Yes, many have killed their partner in rock climbing – by misplacing a piton, by failing to arrest a fall in time, etc. Some of them may have moral culpability.
But which of the three pursuits should be banned – if any – and why?
December 12th, 2012 | 12:04 pm
Ray,
By my reading, he explicitly says he thinks the BSDM group doesn’t share it. Can you point out where you think Fr. Guido has assumed all share his conception of dignity?
December 12th, 2012 | 12:17 pm
Ray,
There’s a distinction between someone who caused a death due to a mistake while using rock climbing equipment correctly, vs. a person who caused a death by using rock climbing equipment incorrectly. The Christian argument in this case indeed has a lot to do with the dignity of the person – which perhaps you don’t agree with, although in some areas perhaps you might find that you do. (How words such as
bondage” are brushed off here! In any other context, society would be in outrage. This should make a person think!) The Christian argument is that BSDM treats a person incorrectly – and deaths due to this treatment are not just innocent mistakes with no moral import. If you wanted to start a rock climbing club that also involved cutting off someone’s air supply as part of the thrill, then I would object to that club too.
December 12th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
JDD –
I don’t know a lot about BDSM, but I’m pretty confident that cutting off someone’s air supply (“erotic asphyxiation”) is not a majority practice within that minority.
Is bondage OK with you so long as it doesn’t involve choking anyone? If not, why not focus on that general reasoning rather than bring up a specific and limited objection?
By, er, making a blanket assertion that BDSM violates ‘dignity’ and not providing any explication of how he defines ‘dignity’? Leon Kass thinks eating an ice cream cone is undignified and animalistic, too – but absent a case for his conception of dignity, why should I care what he thinks?
December 12th, 2012 | 5:04 pm
[Ray] “I don’t know a lot about BDSM, but I’m pretty confident that cutting off someone’s air supply (“erotic asphyxiation”) is not a majority practice within that minority.”
Ray, some times you make me laugh out loud. What a cop out! We are discussing those practices which cause death. And, how do YOU know what is a majority practice or not! You’re ‘pretty confident’, how? Chris Marks says “many young people” practice it, and that ‘some’ of his crowd do…then waxes poetic about the frailness of life. But we’re not talking about natural death here, are we. And we’re not talking about a young person holding their *own* breath here – are we.
December 13th, 2012 | 12:46 am
The quote from Kass summons up Steven Pinker’s article attack in which he held that quote up to ridicule but also attacked the concept of dignity, as you might surmise from the title of his essay, “The Stupidity of Dignity.” I think most people would demur from advocating Kass’s repugnance for public ice cream eating but, though funny, it is absurd to suggest this somehow puts the concept of dignity on the shelf until further justified and it is absurd to try to substitute the much more skeletal and ominous autonomy to function in the place of dignity, especially since it is just as fungible as the concept of dignity AND it is more amenable to abuse. A list of Dr. Kevorkian’s victims, provided in a post by Wesley J. Smith some place, illustrates the ugliness for which autonomy is employed. One example was a woman whose husband beat her up the week before and who flew her out to Kevorkian the following week. Another was an elderly woman suffering from bedsores because of poor care. Autonomy gave the stamp of approval to their ultimate effacement in their emotionally pitiable states. Advocates of S&M lean toward autonomy away from dignity. The minimal vision of wellbeing becomes as long as there is no harm, as long as no one dies, rather than an attendance to the spirit, soul and body of a human being. As long as the person is not strangled to death- no matter if the seat of the emotions is in disorder and the woman has adapted herself to abuse and learned to ‘love’ it, perhaps in this way having a feeling of power over it, while unfortunately embracing it at the same time. The human being seems to have no limit to the degree of degradation she can adapt to and there seems to be always someone willing to defend her degradation in terms of autonomy. The Apostle Paul wrote, “May God Himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.” 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. Christians are called to a more comprehensive ethic than libertarian arguments provide. At the least, Christians must desire the good for themselves and for their neighbor and must not affirm or enable or bracket actions which involve, according to the best lights of their conscience, a disordering of the emotions and an abuse of the body and a flirtation of the spirit with evil. Requests for moral complacence toward S&M are inviolably unacceptable.
Ray Ingles,
Its nice that you mentioned anatomical suitability in your response. How rare in this day and age! But that points to something beyond a conflation of morality with taste. It suggests that the body has limitations and purposes best acknowledged and harmonized with – a good thing too. Biological difference between the sexes however doesn’t equate to the difference between a death wish and a desire for all embracing wellbeing. Not every desire known to man should be affirmed. I’ve seen a person in tears because no one confronted him about what he had come to see as his sexual immorality but one person. Who loved him? The confronter or the complacent? He thought it was the confronter.
As was aptly pointed out by other posters, there are degrees of moral culpability. It is possible to argue everything which leads to death but outright, bald intent to murder, is conflatable with a climbing accident on the basis of vagary of intent, but thankfully this is not that case in our laws, let alone in acute personal moral perception. Besides laws against first degree murder, we have laws against reckless endangerment, and so forth.
December 13th, 2012 | 9:53 am
JDD –
Ahem. You are “discussing those practices which cause death”.
I, on the other hand, am pointing out that there are a lot of practices that fall under the BDSM umbrella that do not cause death. I mean, if you wanted to argue against mountain climbing in general because of the relatively large percentage of people who die ascending Everest, you’ll get some pushback. Most mountains aren’t Everest, and handcuffs on the headboard aren’t choking people.
Haven’t seen any solid numbers either way, so I have to go with guesstimates. Based on news reports – and since it’s kind of a lurid death, you’d expect more publicity – such deaths just aren’t that common.
If you’ve got numbers, let’s see ‘em.
December 13th, 2012 | 10:18 am
David Alexander –
I didn’t see anyone ask you to be morally complacent. However, that doesn’t mean others have to take your moral outrage seriously, any more than we automatically take Kass’ outrage at Baskin Robbins seriously.
Odd that you missed the central point, though. If the priority is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’, homosexuals fulfill that quite literally in the bedroom. I take it, then, that treating others well is a bit more complicated than ‘treat everyone the same’.
And again with the “death wish”. What if – and this is a radical notion, I know, but indulge me – BDSM doesn’t have to involve flirting with death? Just, you know, humor me on that.
December 13th, 2012 | 10:57 am
[Ray] Ahem. You are “discussing those practices which cause death”.
We’ve discussed (briefly) the moral differences between different circumstances of one’s ‘mistakes’ and you’ve mentioned culpability. Both of us have been discussing these practices which cause death, but it appears you’d desperately no longer like to.
December 13th, 2012 | 11:01 am
[Ray] “Is bondage OK with you so long as it doesn’t involve choking anyone? If not, why not focus on that general reasoning rather than bring up a specific and limited objection?”
I bet you can guess my answer, and is it getting a little difficult to defend your position over there? Let the fellow reader decide the value of the “limited objection”! You jumped into the fray when David Alexandar mentioned non-intentional deaths from S&M, and YOU countered with *specific* counter-situations!
Those darn specifics make it difficult to talk in vanilla tones of ‘life is filled with danger…I cross the street in traffic, I ski on the weekends, I cut off someone’s air supply during intimacy…it’s sad, but things happen.” The person who practices BDSM can feel free to attempt to persuade the judge that he ought to be out there arresting rock-climbers and let him bury his partner in peace.
Ray, do you object to the sexual practice of cutting off a person’s air supply? If you don’t, why not? If you do, why?
[JDD] “Can you point out where you think Fr. Guido has assumed all share his conception of dignity?”
[Ray] “By, er, making a blanket assertion that BDSM violates ‘dignity’ and not providing any explication of how he defines ‘dignity’?
A person who states that he thinks something violates his own definition is not saying *anything* about whether he thinks others share it. But I bet you already knew that. Seems to me he didn’t define ‘person’ either. Come to think of it, neither did Chris Marks define ‘dignity’. Nor have you. But you seem to argue that, so far, it’s not been violated here. Why, we need to re-invent philosophy every time we have a conversation. You keep beating that dead horse.
Ray, I’ve asked a few specific questions. Based on other conversations we’ve had, I’d guess that you’d say the specifics are where we find out whether a person’s overall philosophies really hold up. If you won’t answer them, then we’re not really having much of a conversation.
December 13th, 2012 | 2:11 pm
JDD –
The difficulty appears to be in conveying that position to you, not defending it. I’ll try yet again: Not all – to my knowledge, not even most – BDSM is life-threatening, or even particularly injury-threatening. (I don’t understand the appeal, I admit, but then again I can’t grasp why anyone would care about NASCAR, either.)
Sure. There seems to be no ‘safe’ way to choke someone to the edge of consciousness. On the other hand, I dabbled in rock climbing back in college and that can be done reasonably safely if you pay attention.
I fail to see how tying someone up or even spanking them, let alone role-playing (even dressed in leather or whatever), necessarily risks permanent injury or death.
There are idiots who surf 60-foot waves and sometimes die because of it. That doesn’t mean surfing per se is immoral.
In the exact same way, just because some ‘extreme’ versions of BDSM are stupid and egregiously risky doesn’t mean BDSM in general is harmful.
I’ve seen people say it’s violated, but I didn’t see any good arguments for why I should agree.
December 13th, 2012 | 4:35 pm
[JDD] “Do you object to the sexual practice of cutting off a person’s air supply?”
[Ray] “Sure.”
Then at least join in condemning this part of the Harvard group.
[JDD] “But you seem to argue that, so far, it’s not been violated here.”
[Ray] “I’ve seen people say it’s violated, but I didn’t see any good arguments for why I should agree.”
Not sure how you square this with your above statement. Presumably you have a working definition of dignity. Does cutting off someone’s air as a practice of intimacy violate it? You just said above that it does.
[Ray] “The difficulty appears to be in conveying that position to you, not defending it. I’ll try yet again: Not all – to my knowledge, not even most – BDSM is life-threatening, or even particularly injury-threatening….On the other hand, I dabbled in rock climbing back in college and that can be done reasonably safely if you pay attention.”
The danger faced here isn’t the same as the danger inherent in putting yourself to a challenge. The analogy would again be, you went rock climbing in a way that purposely misused your carabiners and lines. You purposely hit a carabiner a few times with a hammer; intentionally scraped your lines over some rocks, or rather scraped your friend’s lines over some rocks. Both of you laughed as you gave the equipment back to your friend and said, “There, doesn’t that make things more exciting!” Are you treating your friend well? Are you treating yourself well? Humans beings aren’t supposed to have their air cut off. It’s a misuse of the human person. In any other context it would be considered a cause for intervention. Again, there’s danger imposed from without that one seeks to conquer, and then there’s danger imposed from within. In this case, it’s even more convoluted, because the danger is imposed from one person to another person. Imagine some sort of rock climbing where one person – more or less insulated from danger – puts another person in the way of a hazard to their life. I would expect that you would object to this ‘variation’ on mountain climbing. That’s some of the philosophy behind the arguments.
December 13th, 2012 | 11:42 pm
The discussions on licking ice cream, and rock climbing, and choking, are all very interesting, but what exactly is a munch and what does it have to do with all this other stuff?
December 14th, 2012 | 9:13 am
JDD –
I already do. The thing is, I’m not seeing that distinction being made here. I mean, I don’t have a problem with a surf club per se just because some ‘extreme surfers’ take stupid risks.
If you want me to condemn the entire club, I need a better argument than “some unknown fraction of them probably do stupidly risky things”.
December 14th, 2012 | 12:19 pm
RedChakra,
Thanks for reading along. “munch” = meeting + lunch. And is also apparently the name of the group in question.
JDD
December 14th, 2012 | 12:19 pm
[Ray] “If you want me to condemn the entire club, I need a better argument than “some unknown fraction of them probably do stupidly risky things”.”
I think I’ve provided significantly more than that in terms of argument.
Those ‘stupidly risky things’ we’ve agreed upon, Chris Marks describes as acts of love. He’s saying it’s an act of love to do something which knowingly places the other in considerable danger for the sake of ‘bonding’ and excitement. The psychological nature of the ‘bond’ thus forged has not been discussed here, but that should make one pause to consider how much stock to put in the rest of their understanding of love. He expands upon his group’s philosophy in a way that should invite any sane young woman or man to gather their things and head for the door: “They do not know nor wish to understand that there can be great love and respect even when there is infliction of pain or subjugation.” It’s an interesting – and disappointing – thought experiment to imagine the reaction of the esteemed Harvard campus if these words had been said by any – and I mean any – other group. He says “Hey, don’t judge!” Why do you think he gets a pass?
Final question: Would you object to the rock climbing club I described in my previous post joining your campus? How about if it was known that some of the members practiced the risky methods I mentioned, and that *occasionally* it let to deaths of students? I’m not saying that safe methods occasionally led to rock-climbing deaths. I’m saying that this rock climbing group included members who liked to get really close to death in order to heighten the experience, by purposely damaging their equipment. Would you recommend someone join their group? Is this a good example of a rock climbing club? Serious question.
December 14th, 2012 | 3:47 pm
JDD –
Did you miss it when Chris Marks said: “…many young people practice auto-asphyxiation and die as a result and there are some SM people that do similar dangerous things and harm happens. I do not condone these…”? (December 9th, 2012 | 7:37 pm)
So far as I can see, what Chris Marks describes as ‘acts of love’, and the “stupidly risky things” we’ve been discussing (deliberate asphyxiation), are disjoint sets. At this point, I’m seriously wondering if this continued conflation is willful.
December 15th, 2012 | 11:35 am
If I follow this correctly, a munch is a meeting over lunch. No sex, no rock climbing, no choking. It seems to me that the fuss is over what happens after the meeting, not during the meeting itself.
December 17th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
‘Willful conflation’…no. Stow the insults, Ray. I come back from the weekend, and is that your *entire* response to my last post?
Mr. Marks doesn’t appear to know exactly what he means by ‘acts of love’. I previously highlighted his definition of the philosophy that defines his group, and while he does early on say what you’ve mentioned, he finishes his quote by lamenting that, “… there are unintended consequences in all of life, we must choose to accept responsibility for ourselves each day we leave the house, have sex with another, drive to work, etc.” and then goes on to say: “If you and the followers of your God wish to practice differently then I say “May God bless you” (sincerely). When you tell me how I should live and that your God trumps my beliefs and practice, then I say “How arrogant of you to ‘divine’ that which is holy and proper for me”….
So, on one hand, “I don’t condone these actions”, but on the other, “Don’t you Christians judge *any* actions.” Taken with the philosophies of “bonding through pain and subjugation” he’s already mentioned, along with the obvious truth that self-appointed spokesman Mr. Marks doesn’t actually have any idea what limits are actually practiced by the members of the group, it’s difficult to see why anyone at Harvard administration would be assured.
We’ve been discussing this subset in a larger context – hopefully that point has been clear. Left undiscussed is whether other acts wrapped up in the BDSM ‘set’ are also harmful to the human person.
Will you answer my last question from Friday?
December 17th, 2012 | 1:58 pm
RedChakra,
“If I follow this correctly, a munch is a meeting over lunch. No sex, no rock climbing, no choking. It seems to me that the fuss is over what happens after the meeting, not during the meeting itself.”
True enough – this discussion isn’t over the meeting itself. The actual Harvard dispute concerns formal recognition and funding for the club – which carries considerably more weight and of course shapes the campus – and surrounding city – culture.
December 18th, 2012 | 8:51 am
JDD -
Three different phrases in quotes – but, strangely, only one of them is actually a quote of ChrisMarks’ words. Convenient for you that he’s not here any more to point that out.
No, it’s not.
What ChrisMarks was arguing, though, was that this ‘munch’ was not analogous to such a club. And – misleading not-quotes aside – you’ve presented no evidence that it’s actually like that. What you’ve said seems to boil down to (and this is my paraphrase) – ‘Some BDSM types do (or advocate) dumb things, this is a BDSM club, therefore they must do (or advocate) dumb things.’
Some monotheists practice suicide bombing, Christians are monotheists, therefore the Lutheran church practices suicide bombing. Sound convincing? Not to me.
I’m very permissive when it comes to that. For example, I think anti-vaccine types are stupid and destructive, and I think Christian Science types needlessly forego a lot of useful medical treatments to their detriment. But until their kids are in imminent danger, I’ll let them do what they see fit. I’ll argue against both, and vigorously, but they have the right to express their misguided positions.
Likewise, absent demonstrable imminent harm, BDSM types can meet and say what they want. I’ll still think they’re pretty weird, and sometimes dangerous. But they get to say what they like, and we both get to say what we want about them.
December 18th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
Wow, what a long and diverse discussion. Some excellent points have been raised but a few that Mr Ingles points out are without merit and in my view I would have to agree.
To JDD – I have to say I find some of your comments as lacking a solid basis also:
“Mr. Marks doesn’t appear to know exactly what he means by ‘acts of love’. I previously highlighted his definition of the philosophy that defines his group…”
I do not see how you arrive at this conclusion. He does not purport to represent a group and only talks about others in a large community. He didn’t define all the ways he shows his love to his partner but it seems there are many different ways from his comments, including some that he calls vanilla.
JDD – “formal recognition and funding for the club – which carries considerably more weight and of course shapes the campus – and surrounding city – culture.”
So based on this premise; this is how NYC became so perverted; it was the BDSM club that started on the Columbia University Campus in 1994. I guess Boston will now suffer the same fate. Yet from the PS from Mr Marks it seems that the virginity club is equally well received on the campus so maybe this is hyperbole.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact