Posts by Max Rose
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Euan Mason,
You are right that we need data. Among cultures that allow more than two in a marriage, I can think of several that allow polygamy but I can’t think of any that allow polyandry. No doubt they do or at least have existed? It would be interesting to know what power relationships existed in any that allowed both.
I don't think that comparing to cultures that formally recognise n>2 marriage is the way to go. Instead, we'd need to look at what is desired and practised, without legal recognition, in our culture and others like it. Even then it's difficult, as we have long cultural taboos against nonmonogamy, so that even among the more liberal and secular of us it's hard to tell from what's publicly lived or expressed what might be secretly or unconsciously wanted. But the closest we would have is people who more-or-less openly practise polyamory, among whom polygyny is far from the only or even dominant form of relationship (AFAIK).
-
Hard News: The mathematics of marriage, in reply to Euan Mason,
In my view it tends to be associated with patriarchy and yes, I agree that in some utopia it might be only consenting adults with just as many multiple husband marriages as multiple wife ones, but I don’t think that’s very likely in our current male dominated society.
That's a common misconception, not aided by the use of the term "polygamy", which is usually conflated with patriarchal polygyny. Some of it is based on lack of obvious historical precedent; some on (as you mention) the current male-dominated society; and some on the myth that women are "naturally" more monogamous than men.
I really ought to look for some research, rather than relying on anecdata, but among the people I know who are or have been in long-term polyamorous relationships, more often than not it's the woman* who has a secondary partner or has more adventures outside of the marriage or primary relationship. I've been in two long(ish)-term poly relationship, and in each of those I was the secondary partner to someone who had a primary male partner. I think that if greater legal recognition for multi-partner relationships were to be given (either as "marriage" or as a deconstructed suite of rights and responsibilities), a lot of people would be surprised by the number of people who might take it up, and by the composition of those relationships.
[*heterormative as fuck, I know, but the discussion has led us here and it's also true for the examples I'm thinking of]
-
Up Front: Staying In, in reply to Emma Hart,
I think it’s probably a bigger thing for me because, y’know, nobody’s ever bailed me up at a party and spent an hour telling me I can’t possibly consent to being bisexual. Nobody’s ever told me my bi-ness is false consciousness, or that it means I’m contributing to the abuse of women.
That makes it clearer to me. I've never had the equivalent of that, for several reasons.
One is because I've only discovered (or expressed) my kinkiness in the last few years, and it seems a lot more openly discussed since ... perhaps since Secretary? When I was younger, the only MSM mentions of kink tended to be of a particular sort of Femdom (Peter Plumley-Walker, Ken Russell's film "Whore", a one-woman show in Wellington about a Dominatrix), involving a somewhat Pythonesque cliché of the upper-class male authority figure who pays to be humiliated. I don't remember many representations of female submission, or if I did, they were entangled with nastier misogynistic aspects of mainstream porn rather than shown as consensual and mutually pleasurable D/s, so I avoided them. Nowadays, at least in the circles I move in, kink seems to be (at least slightly) better understood.
Secondly, I adjust how I refer to my kinky side depending upon context. Some people I wouldn't tell at all (in the same way I wouldn't tell them any details of my sex life). There are others, such as certain acquaintances or colleagues, with whom I might share some drunken confidences, but while I might say that I was into kink or that I'm a Dom, I'm unlikely to go into details about what that actually means. They might be okay with that, but if I said "Oh yes, I took my beautiful lover home last night, chained her up and whipped her until she cried, and she loved every minute", I expect the reaction would be very different. Some would be horrified and never speak to me again, some might give me their number, but I expect most would just say "Dude, I didn't need to know that". Just writing that now, anonymously, made me feel uncomfortable.
Thirdly, while I can imagine many feminists of a certain faction attacking me in the way they attacked you, but by calling me an abuser or misogynist, that wouldn't apply to most of the active feminists I know. The feminist circles I move in are very sex-positive, and most of the individuals range from kink-friendly to kinky as fuck.
The first and third points, which are mostly about the privilege of timing and context, are aspects where you haven't been so lucky, but it's through your writing that I can get some insight into both the need for and the difficulty of coming out. The second point is more about the degree to which one sees one's kinkiness as an orientation - something that defines one's social attitudes, self-image and way of seeing the world - rather than as a private bedroom predilection.
-
Up Front: Staying In, in reply to Emma Hart,
Writing posts like those at TLG instead of here is one of the precautions I take. I feel safer simply because of the smaller and more focused audience.
Um, whoops! I hope I haven't ... outed you.
-
Up Front: Staying In, in reply to Emma Hart,
For me, BDSM is an orientation. It's more than what I do, it's part of who I am. I totally accept that it's not like that for everyone.
For me ... the jury's out at the moment. It feels like a vital part of me, and the more I think about it, the further back the roots seem to go. But it doesn't seem as defining a part of me. Or at least, not yet.
I think coming out is a useful concept when you're dealing with something where if you don't tell people, they don't assume they don't know, they assume you're something you're not.
That's an interesting distinction, and I probably need to think on it further. There's certainly value in challenging erasure and correcting assumptions, especially for something that is undoubtedly a hidden yet defining part of many people's lives.
But if you don't know someone's "orientation", most people (outside the Bubble) will unconsciously assume that they're straight, cis, monogamous, and vanilla.
There may be an aspect that the first three assumptions have in common, but that is usually different for vanilla/kink, and that's the degree to which their Otherness has legal and social implications. If someone has a same-sex partner, or has to change the "sex" field on their passport, or wants to bring their boyfriend and his girlfriend to a work dinner, then their orientation or identity is public and requires public awareness and/or legal instruments. Yet BDSM seems (with some exceptions) largely an aspect of activity that is usually considered private, whether kinky or vanilla.
There definitely are some irruptions of one's sex life into the public realm, such as whether your choice of porn is legal, and whether counsellors, sex columnists and doctors can understand the particular dynamics and, um, physical effects of a BDSM relationship. But in most circumstances, I wouldn't feel the need to tell an acquaintance, colleague or family member whether a particular relationship was a vanilla or D/s one. Your mileage very much varies, of course, but for me and most co-workers etc, it would seem like oversharing. At the moment.
-
One thing about Clarisse's post on Coming Out Day was that it made me think about whether BDSM was an aspect of my life that counted as "coming out".
I can understand that sexual orientation and polyamory are things that have a public dimension: they're about who you have sex with and who you love, and that's something that spills over into marriage, property, children, and who you bring to the work Xmas do. BDSM is more about what you do with those people, and in most cases, that's essentially private. As far as most people are concerned, it's more along the lines of whether you prefer doggy style or reverse cowgirl: completely up to you, but TMI for afternoon tea.
On the other hand, I can definitely see the wider advantages of "coming out" as kinky. It can increase societal awareness and help those struggling with their BDSM awareness realise that they're not the only one. I know for instance that it was Emma's "Take Strictly, as Directed" post that helped me realise that it was far from rare or strange for women to have submissive desires, and that my own inclinations were not misogynistic and dangerous. It can also avoid some dangerous misunderstandings among vanilla people, as another of Emma's posts (not sure whether it's here or on TLG) demonstrated. And it might be good to be able to answer a colleague's question about what you're doing at the weekend with "going to a ball" ... without nervously anticipating the question "what sort of ball?"
Fundamentally, though, I don't feel as much of a personal tension about "coming out" to acquaintances as a kinkster as I do about nonmonogamy. It's much worse for women, of course, since women are supposed to be all about commitment and "one true love". I can get away with playing the rake, but it would be nice sometimes for people to realise that it's possible to be in love with more than one person at a time, and that the fact that I'm not looking for a life-long monogamous partnership doesn't make me "afraid of commitment", "emotionally unavailable", or some sort of heartless womanising bastard. And that's the main reason I keep this pseudonym.
-
There are pros and cons to anonymity. In my old blog I used my real name, with my photo and email address in the sidebar. That helped me make contacts and build trust, and in the end it helped me get a job. It may have got me a few dates along the way. Mind you, there was very little personal content, apart from the stunning revelation that I'm a bit of a lush, and the only downside of expressing my own opinions there was that a certain prominent businessman tried to get me fired for something I wrote several years ago.
Now I use some pseudonyms that I hope will never be connected to my real name, primarily when I want to leave a comment that would run close to the wind regarding my employer's code of conduct. However, I have other online identities (such as this one and on Twitter) that I'm quite happy for my friends to know is me, but that I'd rather wouldn't come up in a Google search on my real name. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm a promiscuous kinky drunkard, and that's fine. But I'd rather not have that come up as the first Google results from a prospective employer.
-
Up Front: Towards a Sex-Positive Utopia, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,
it's not OK to discriminate against someone even if they can change who they are is powerful and important
Exactly! While the "born this way" idea has been a focus for some, who cares whether it's an inclination, an orientation, a predilection or just a whim? No-one should be telling anyone else who or how they can (consensually) shag.
-
Up Front: Towards a Sex-Positive Utopia, in reply to Emma Hart,
I know a bunch of Doms. I know a bunch of subs. If I gave you a list of their occupations, I doubt you could work out which list was which.
It doesn't seem to be anything other than anecdotal evidence plus a vague plausibility argument, but at least this speculation on domination and careers comes from people who should know:
"The desire to help, to enhance or to make others happy is common among dominants. This may be why so many dominants are in the teaching and helping professions: medicine, social work, religion. Other-centred people make good dominants. Self-centred people often find that the strain of the responsibilities inherent in a BDSM relationship is overwhelming."
- John Warren, "The Loving Dominant"
-
Up Front: Towards a Sex-Positive Utopia, in reply to Gee,
The day that, for example, a schoolteacher could teach their students about sex of all shapes, forms and preferences, including none and not just puberty, could discuss polyamory, bisexuality, BDSM, asexuality, porn and the missionary position openly, is the day that society allows people to be who they are without judgment.
Exactement.
The reason I use this pseudonym here is not that I'm ashamed of what I'm saying, that it's illegal, that I want to be a cowardly anonymous dickmonkey to people here, or even that I'm particularly worried about my friends knowing it's me. It's because this is an open forum, and my name would be forever attached via Google to my views on polyamory, prostitution, BDSM and the like. I've found that even people who generally consider themselves liberal about such things as sexual orientation get squicked out or judgemental if they know that I'm a kinky man-whore, so god knows what a more conservative potential employer would make of me.