 |
| doulos |
Somewhat a bolt on to the previous rant so apologies if it goes a little preachy: there is an assumption that people within "the scene" are a more tolerant bunch than those outside of it. This does not seem an unreasonable assumption and I feel it is backed up by some reasonable evidence although I feel far too much is made of it. The scene is a community with certain alternative values to sexuality and intimate relationships. The same could be said of many religious communities and many political communities. We do not assume that these communities, by their nature of being a minority necessarily makes them more tolerant. Sometimes, they may even foster intolerant views.
"The scene" has some advantage in the tolerance stakes over many other traditional minority communities: the lack of any central authority. There is no body of people nor is there any holy set of texts that defines what we do. There is no higher goal set for this community than our happiness and enjoyment. We are hedonists. We all just happen to find that our individual happiness seems to converge on a related set of themes. Hence, no one is in a position to dictate what is right and wrong in this community with impunity.
That is why, if there is any general increase in tolerance within the community as compared to the mainstream, it will be because of these advantages. As a minority, we know what it is to feel prejudice and so within the community there is a general appreciation of tolerance.
However, we should get a good idea of what tolerance actually is because it seems to be so often mixed up with a general kinkiness, or open mindednes. For tolerance is not having and exploring a wide variety of kinky interests that you chat about openly. Nor is tolerance having an open mind in the sense that you are willing to try out an even greater variety of things just on the basis that other people have shown an interest in them. Real tolerance is only tested on the things for which you have personally no interest at all, and might positively find distasteful or abhorrent. The things that you would never personally take part in. Are you capable of respecting and being content around people with fetishes that you personally find disgusting? That is the true test of tolerance.
For fetishes are highly individual and personal, and having found a group where we seem to be among the standard range of people, it is too easy to want to exclude those who we don't envision as sharing a similar vision to us. People who have a liking for Nazi uniforms seems to be a fairly standard example in terms of fetishware. And so much is the will against such iconography that it is banned in a great many clubs (although do bear in mind that I do support the right of any private club to make up any dresscode they want, and it is not really club owners that are capable of setting any code against the general taste).
It can be too easy to follow one's basic intuitions about what kinks are right and what kinks are wrong in the scene, when those intuitions might be lead by one's personal taste and not by a rational division between what is and what is not proper BDSM. And as I argued in my last post, the primary division is one of consent. We may expand such an idea to "RACK" so as to include a need for risk control and safety precautions but that is all. If a kink is capable of being consentual and being done safely, then it has passed all grounds for condemnation on a principal level. Therefore, anyone who attempts to condemn anything that is consistent with RACK is showing at least a certain amount of intolerance. And while I understand that even a small amount of intolerance has to be tolerated for now or else we won't know where we are, it is certainly something to be discouraged when possible.
So I argue: tolerate Nazi uniforms and Abu Grahib re-enactors. Tolerate nappy fetishists, and tolerate play rapists. They do not have to fit in with one's own personal conception of what is good, inoffensive and beautiful to still be a part of the same scene. Everyone is here to have fun and be who they want to be. This in no way enourages people to become involved in kinks which they do not personally like, nor is it suggesting that particularly alternative kinksters have a special right to flaunt things that others find distasteful. It is just a desire for tolerance for everything that is consistent with consent. It is what we would expect in a perfect world from the mainstream culture. At least, within this scene, we can get this tolerance thing right.
| 23 May 05, 9:04 AM The_Joker 7 yrs  |
I'll tolerate most of it bar one. I'm sorry, I'll never be able to understand the Nazi uniform thing. But, as long as I never see it, then I'll not have a problem with it. The circle is now complete. When I met you I was but the learner. Now, I am the master. | |
| 23 May 05, 9:13 AM Betony UK, 7 yrs |
That is one incredible blog. Thank you. Edited 23 May 05, 9:14 AM by Betony | |
| 23 May 05, 9:35 AM BayeuxTapestry 7 yrs |
There is a general myth of tolerance on the scene which probably exists for a number of reasons,although the biggest being conformity. In that sense the religious analogy works pretty well, at least in most cases. Where the reality of intolerance comes through is in the 'my kink is better than your kink' threads, the less than welcoming attitudes to (male) subs and the thinly veiled homophobia (attendance at Sweet Torments increased once their blocking of memebership for same sex couples was made public). Regarding the nazi uniforms issue, when a promoter is using nazi imagery on every single flyer they are risking provoking attacks on the scene from outsiders. | |
| 23 May 05, 11:58 AM verte UK(E), 8 yrs |
Excellent blog, Mr Doulos. I think the issue is that within minority subcultures, because of the laws and rights involved, there is a desire to create a stable, uniform morality code that represents 'the scene'. Obviously that's impossible, but I think tolerance is most definitely the main point. Hope the philosophy party was a riot ...! | |
| 23 May 05, 2:06 PM doulos UK(SW), 7 yrs |
There are certainly practical issues when dealing with the mainstream that might rule out certain kinks being advertised. However, there is also a pressure within the scene to go against certain kinks and that is the shame. I wonder if one really has to understand a fetish in order to tolerate it? Is it not enough to understand that wherever it comes from, it can be both consentual and safe and so is something to be tolerated. That is a great shame to hear about homophobia within the scene as well. I suppose this is a prejudice against gay men specifically? I had previously thought that homosexuals had their own clubs and simply preferred them and that it wasn't a matter of prejudice. But I admit that is rather naive. A gay friend of mine has expressed an interest in coming along to a club sometime. I suppose Club Subversion would be the best place to invite him along at the moment. There seems to be a fairly open vibe there. "Let our love be a flame not an ember | |
| 23 May 05, 7:25 PM BayeuxTapestry 7 yrs |
Yeah it seems to be more against gay men. Make a conscious observation of same sex play next time you are out, chances are there will be plenty of FF, but little or not MM. There are few/no good gay play clubs in London, the Hoist and the Backstreet are basically cruisebars with some degree of dresscode depending on the night etc. Hard-on, formerly Fist, is basically a gay TG, dress up and dance and sex, little play. There are occasional events at Central Station, but they vary greatly and tend to be a bit too themed at times. Bring him to Subversion, I brought a gay friend along and he had a great time, and he is very picky about clubs.
|
