?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Aug. 12th, 2004


OKay... SO ... I posted this: Post about that sexual abuse meme and promiscuity/ "deviant" sex going hand in hand from MY perspective

A lot of replies to that, even some that I know disagreed, but hey, different way of looking at things, different opinion, no big whoop. So like a week after I posted it mast3r_of_d00m (note that he's deleted that journal in the last DAY) posts this reponse:

Subject: Saw this through an LJ friend's LJ and...
...A different way of understanding the correlation you see, your personal experience, is that people who are poly, heavy BDSM, M/s, or exhibitionists, or whatever is that those people are more likely to talk about sex in general, and so you are seeing that 'meme' in those journals more frequently.

For every person who experiences the 'side effect' of some kind of elevated sexual activity from abuse, there is probably another person who represses their sexuality and so would *never* post that 'meme' because they are experiencing a side effect that makes them undersexual or turned off to all discussion of sexuality, or makes them physically incapable of sexual response because of lingering psycological 'side effects' of that trauma. Also, something that coincides with your sentiment of 'f___ you, LJ': there seems to be a much higher number of people on LJ with alternate sexualities than people who are reserved about their sexuality.The truth is, most people don't see that behavior as a side effect because, quite frankly, it usually isn't, anymore than any 'non-straight and missionary' sexual identity or behavior from homosexuality to a desire to have hetero vanilla sex doggie style is a 'side effect' of some kind of trauma. On top of that, think how many people *would* have explored an alternate sexuality, but for that abuse, are fearful of anything but the most mainstream vanilla sex they can be satisfied with.

I bet if you decided to, you could also find a high correlation between queer persons and that 'meme'--it's one of those situation where it 'makes sense' that there should be a cause-and-effect, and the correlation seems to provide proof of that logic. The problem is the 'logic' is just bad pop/Puritan psycology that we are all fed by our simplistic, intolerant culture, combined with a skewed sample that makes it look like the correlation is cause-and-effect; it is, but not for the reason that an alternate sexuality is a 'side effect' of prior sexual abuse.


So I said: Basically that he was trying to use slipperly slope logic to make my point illogical

Their reply was:
Subject: Two quick points that did not fit

As for strippers, that has to do with economics, and that's a whole other question than the one you asked, and which I'm addressing.

And as for 'sex through a sheet' and the other scenario you describe, I *don't* think there is a huge gulf between the two. An arrested sexual development qualifies as 'abuse' in my book. Mainstream sexuality certainly does not see sex for procreation only as 'normal'. I think you have a mistaken picture of my conception of human sexuality if you're thinking that I'm talking about some kind of continuum of sexual behavior, which may be contributing to your misunderstanding of my point. The prevailing 'truth' of a certain time frame and place, even a 'scientific' one, can have more to do with non-scientific, reasons like prejudice, tradition, or just plain ignorance than with some kind of empirical assesment of properly gathered data, which produces an irrational result.


And so I replied: Here I told him he was being incoherent, defensive and that he'd upped the vocabulary

Their reply was:
To break it down simply and make it more coherent (I believe what I've written so far is coherent if you'd read it with an open mind more aware of the history of science than its modern incarnation), here's the answer to your question as to why people don't 'get' the connection you make in three possible reasons:

1) They do; they just don't care, and you really didn't offer a good reason as to why they should make a connection between something horrible that happened to them and something that gives them a lot of joy. What's the point?

2) The 'meme'/kink connection looks more like a coincidence than a cause-and-effect, for some reason that has nothing to do with psycology/medical science (e.g. statistics).

3) The 'meme'/kink connection looks more like a coincidence than a cause-and-effect for some reason that *has* to do with psycology/medical science. That's what all my counter-arguments have to do with if you didn't understand, that they are starting from a different scientific perspective which answers the 'why' of your question. You may think they are wrong, but they think you are as well for reasons just as valid as yours.

As for strippers, I'm sorry, it doesn't; we're talking about private, freely exchanged behavior, and to introduce sex workers into the argument would be to pull in our respective beliefs about economic, beliefs that have nothing to do with your original question.

As for upping the vocabular and all that, umm, huh? I'm sorry, this really is the way I think and talk about issues; in print, in digital text, in vocal speech, the medium does not matter. It seems you've misunderstood and misjudged me as thoroughly as you have the people who responded to that 'meme' (including us at this point, in a sense). The first time I got drunk I described the vodka and gin as "these innocuous liquids", so, take it from there. I haven't upped the vocabulary for any other reason than to make the connection between my words and my ideas more precise. Sorry, but, if you're going to make that kind of criticism, I'm going to have to reply and let you know, that yes, I really am this smart--this isn't even close to the level of word choice I make when I write for a serious audience. This is just me.

It is true, I do disagree. However, I was trying to get you to see that I disagree for valid, logical reasons by providing counter arguments to your premises which could answer your original question as to why they do not see the connection you do with something other than 'they are not as enlightened/logicial/educated/honest as you'.

I deny the connection you seem to think any rational person cannot help but see. If so, at this point you think I'm blinding myself to a fact that I could see if I had the correct understanding of medical science. On the other hand, I think that you're not recognizing that your belief is as flawed as pervious medical truths have been. On one level we're in disagreement as to the importance we should attach to the findings of medical science, which is logically possible. No one is compelled to believe the other.

However, there is a deeper level. I'm not saying that you cannot rationally believe what you do; however, unless you acknowledge my point that there is the possibility that current medical science *could* (not necessarily *is*--see the difference now?) be wrong about this 'connection', you *are* saying that about me. At which point either enough of the points I've made are irrational that they do not create the possibility for disagreement between rational minds, or you are wondering why I don't think the same thing you do for no reason other than you think it.

Really, we're not discussing bdsm, we're discussion science and truth. If you just 'think' there is a 'connection' that you cannot communicate (which you have not so far), at that point you're talking about preferences, not reasons. In that case you've answered your own question: those people don't see the connection because, well, they are not you. Simple as that.


Yes, that really WAS 'simple and coherent'

Soooo I said: More or less just "yep, that's what you think. Difference of opinion. AGAIN

So...

They replied:
People don't generally respond in five paragraph answers to defend rhetorical questions--fact is, you made what I now see is an ignorant statement, and someone who does not know you well enough to know not to take anything you say on a topic of substance seriously responded with a post attempting to explain what you said you failed to understand.

From there, you backpeddled from telling me "Promiscuity and sexual abuse go hand in hand. They just do. You can't explain that away" to "we just have a difference of opinion." If you honestly understood what a difference of opinion stemming from a different approach really meant, you wouldn't have made this post in the first place--'why don't people see things the way I do? Oh yeah, difference of opinion' You would have answered your own question.

For some reason you went looking for personal attacks on you where there were none, because frankly, I can tell you can't even understand what I'm trying to say to you in a considered, honest argument. Instead, you tell me to "spare you" when you imagine my assessment of modern medical science is about you, call me a "twat," and whip out some internet rulebook of argument where you try to tell me what I mean. I'm sorry, I do not have time for people who can't tell a rational discussion from internet drama. Next time you see someone who is not part of your elite internet subculture where twisted logic like 'upping your vocabulary'='position of weakness' holds any water, please do not waste their time like you've wasted mine.

I Said:
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<lj-cut text="Exceedingly long "decipher his bullshit" post">
OKay... SO ... I posted this: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html" target="_blank">Post about that sexual abuse meme and promiscuity/ "deviant" sex going hand in hand from MY perspective</a>

A lot of replies to that, even some that I know disagreed, but hey, different way of looking at things, different opinion, no big whoop. So like a week after I posted it <lj user="mast3r_of_d00m"> (note that he's deleted that journal in the last DAY) posts this reponse:

<blockquote>Subject: Saw this through an LJ friend's LJ and...
...A different way of understanding the correlation you see, your personal experience, is that people who are poly, heavy BDSM, M/s, or exhibitionists, or whatever is that those people are more likely to talk about sex in general, and so you are seeing that 'meme' in those journals more frequently.

For every person who experiences the 'side effect' of some kind of elevated sexual activity from abuse, there is probably another person who represses their sexuality and so would *never* post that 'meme' because they are experiencing a side effect that makes them undersexual or turned off to all discussion of sexuality, or makes them physically incapable of sexual response because of lingering psycological 'side effects' of that trauma. Also, something that coincides with your sentiment of 'f___ you, LJ': there seems to be a much higher number of people on LJ with alternate sexualities than people who are reserved about their sexuality.The truth is, most people don't see that behavior as a side effect because, quite frankly, it usually isn't, anymore than any 'non-straight and missionary' sexual identity or behavior from homosexuality to a desire to have hetero vanilla sex doggie style is a 'side effect' of some kind of trauma. On top of that, think how many people *would* have explored an alternate sexuality, but for that abuse, are fearful of anything but the most mainstream vanilla sex they can be satisfied with.

I bet if you decided to, you could also find a high correlation between queer persons and that 'meme'--it's one of those situation where it 'makes sense' that there should be a cause-and-effect, and the correlation seems to provide proof of that logic. The problem is the 'logic' is just bad pop/Puritan psycology that we are all fed by our simplistic, intolerant culture, combined with a skewed sample that makes it look like the correlation is cause-and-effect; it is, but not for the reason that an alternate sexuality is a 'side effect' of prior sexual abuse.
</blockquote>

So I said: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html?thread=2214112#t2214112" target="_blank">Basically that he was trying to use slipperly slope logic to make my point illogical</a>

<blockquote>Their reply was:
Subject: Two quick points that did not fit

As for strippers, that has to do with economics, and that's a whole other question than the one you asked, and which I'm addressing.

And as for 'sex through a sheet' and the other scenario you describe, I *don't* think there is a huge gulf between the two. An arrested sexual development qualifies as 'abuse' in my book. Mainstream sexuality certainly does not see sex for procreation only as 'normal'. I think you have a mistaken picture of my conception of human sexuality if you're thinking that I'm talking about some kind of continuum of sexual behavior, which may be contributing to your misunderstanding of my point. The prevailing 'truth' of a certain time frame and place, even a 'scientific' one, can have more to do with non-scientific, reasons like prejudice, tradition, or just plain ignorance than with some kind of empirical assesment of properly gathered data, which produces an irrational result.</blockquote>

And so I replied: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html?thread=2214880#t2214880" target="_blank">Here I told him he was being incoherent, defensive and that he'd upped the vocabulary</a>

<blockquote> Their reply was:
To break it down simply and make it more coherent (I believe what I've written so far is coherent if you'd read it with an open mind more aware of the history of science than its modern incarnation), here's the answer to your question as to why people don't 'get' the connection you make in three possible reasons:

1) They do; they just don't care, and you really didn't offer a good reason as to why they should make a connection between something horrible that happened to them and something that gives them a lot of joy. What's the point?

2) The 'meme'/kink connection looks more like a coincidence than a cause-and-effect, for some reason that has nothing to do with psycology/medical science (e.g. statistics).

3) The 'meme'/kink connection looks more like a coincidence than a cause-and-effect for some reason that *has* to do with psycology/medical science. That's what all my counter-arguments have to do with if you didn't understand, that they are starting from a different scientific perspective which answers the 'why' of your question. You may think they are wrong, but they think you are as well for reasons just as valid as yours.

As for strippers, I'm sorry, it doesn't; we're talking about private, freely exchanged behavior, and to introduce sex workers into the argument would be to pull in our respective beliefs about economic, beliefs that have nothing to do with your original question.

As for upping the vocabular and all that, umm, huh? I'm sorry, this really is the way I think and talk about issues; in print, in digital text, in vocal speech, the medium does not matter. It seems you've misunderstood and misjudged me as thoroughly as you have the people who responded to that 'meme' (including us at this point, in a sense). The first time I got drunk I described the vodka and gin as "these innocuous liquids", so, take it from there. I haven't upped the vocabulary for any other reason than to make the connection between my words and my ideas more precise. Sorry, but, if you're going to make that kind of criticism, I'm going to have to reply and let you know, that yes, I really am this smart--this isn't even close to the level of word choice I make when I write for a serious audience. This is just me.

It is true, I do disagree. However, I was trying to get you to see that I disagree for valid, logical reasons by providing counter arguments to your premises which could answer your original question as to why they do not see the connection you do with something other than 'they are not as enlightened/logicial/educated/honest as you'.

I deny the connection you seem to think any rational person cannot help but see. If so, at this point you think I'm blinding myself to a fact that I could see if I had the correct understanding of medical science. On the other hand, I think that you're not recognizing that your belief is as flawed as pervious medical truths have been. On one level we're in disagreement as to the importance we should attach to the findings of medical science, which is logically possible. No one is compelled to believe the other.

However, there is a deeper level. I'm not saying that you cannot rationally believe what you do; however, unless you acknowledge my point that there is the possibility that current medical science *could* (not necessarily *is*--see the difference now?) be wrong about this 'connection', you *are* saying that about me. At which point either enough of the points I've made are irrational that they do not create the possibility for disagreement between rational minds, or you are wondering why I don't think the same thing you do for no reason other than you think it.

Really, we're not discussing bdsm, we're discussion science and truth. If you just 'think' there is a 'connection' that you cannot communicate (which you have not so far), at that point you're talking about preferences, not reasons. In that case you've answered your own question: those people don't see the connection because, well, they are not you. Simple as that.</blockquote>

<i>Yes, that really WAS 'simple and coherent'</i>

Soooo I said: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html?thread=2216928#t2216928" target="_blank">More or less just "yep, that's what you think. Difference of opinion. AGAIN</a>

So...
<blockquote>
They replied:
People don't generally respond in five paragraph answers to defend rhetorical questions--fact is, you made what I now see is an ignorant statement, and someone who does not know you well enough to know not to take anything you say on a topic of substance seriously responded with a post attempting to explain what you said you failed to understand.

From there, you backpeddled from telling me "Promiscuity and sexual abuse go hand in hand. They just do. You can't explain that away" to "we just have a difference of opinion." If you honestly understood what a difference of opinion stemming from a different approach really meant, you wouldn't have made this post in the first place--'why don't people see things the way I do? Oh yeah, difference of opinion' You would have answered your own question.

For some reason you went looking for personal attacks on you where there were none, because frankly, I can tell you can't even understand what I'm trying to say to you in a considered, honest argument. Instead, you tell me to "spare you" when you imagine my assessment of modern medical science is about you, call me a "twat," and whip out some internet rulebook of argument where you try to tell me what I mean. I'm sorry, I do not have time for people who can't tell a rational discussion from internet drama. Next time you see someone who is not part of your elite internet subculture where twisted logic like 'upping your vocabulary'='position of weakness' holds any water, please do not waste their time like you've wasted mine.</blockquote>
I Said: <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html?thread=2218720#t2218720"</a>


First I replied with just "Hehe... twat" and then made a <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/maddening/728288.html?thread=2218720#t2218720" target="_blank">second reply</a>

<blockquote>Their reply was:
Obviously you cannot be trusted to drop this, so, if you're wondering where these all went, I removed them to preclude the possibility of you continuing to use up my time and inbox feeding your desire for playing some kind of immature internet game that you seem to have some whole rulebook worked out for. Please stay away, and think about making your journal friends-only in case any of the other adults stumble across it. Goodbye.</blockquote>



So, again, what I personally am seeing here is someone who got annoyed becuase I didn't immediately say "ah yes, you are right, I have BEEN BLINDED by the sciences and how their PETTY NOTIONS of cause and effect and logical followthrough have FALSLY LABELED all those poor souls out in the world you just really want someone to shit in their mouth, carve "slut" into their chest and beat them. It's OBVIOUSLY just a matter of choice and preference and your well thought out, easy to follow, and above all HIGHLY INTELLIGENT post to correct me has changed my ways."

Or .. hehe.. something like that.

So yeah, I didn't agree and he got increasingly annoyed at me and assumed that becuase I wasn't just agreeing with him that I must not be *understanding* him.
Thought he was into bratty subs?

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
akadashi
Aug. 12th, 2004 07:55 am (UTC)
Your heart's above the line, sweetie... ;)
maddening
Aug. 12th, 2004 09:04 am (UTC)
I say we get as many sub stickers as we can find and go nuts in the parking garage where you work.

punkalicia
Aug. 12th, 2004 10:43 am (UTC)
maybe he was trying to bore you into submission?


Obviously you cannot be trusted to drop this, so, if you're wondering where these all went, I removed them to preclude the possibility of you continuing to use up my time and inbox feeding your desire for playing some kind of immature internet game that you seem to have some whole rulebook worked out for. Please stay away, and think about making your journal friends-only in case any of the other adults stumble across it. Goodbye.


i LOVE that even at the end, he's trying to boss you around. tell you how your supposed to be reacting to his brand of bullshit. and that *disagreeing* with him means that you are playing some game, instread of calling some fucking random interwebdork on his stupid shit. and that you should lock away your journal, cause god forbid someone be publically expressive in a way he doesn't like.

also, subbing numbers for words in your journal name is for unimaginative pussys.
mjfgates
Aug. 12th, 2004 06:40 pm (UTC)
Yep, he's a doofus. dooooooooooooooooooooooooooofus. Not that there's a whole lot of surprise there.

You can't see the nifty little syncopated rhythm that I used to type the "o"s in that second one...but it was there!

Used to be, you could do stuff like that, by doing like do^ho^hoo^ho^hoo^ho^ho^hoo^ho^hoo^ho^hoo^ho^ho^ho ... of course, on modern machines you wouldn't even see the flash. Hidden messages for the few people out there running Lynx on their 8088s.

Pointing me at that thread... gah, the temptations... gah. Wish lil' ol' master-of-whatever hadn't picked up his toys and gone home. Of course, there is that one spot where I could ask if you were a stripper.
maddening
Aug. 13th, 2004 06:22 am (UTC)
Nah. I waited tables.
punkle
Aug. 13th, 2004 12:40 pm (UTC)
Hear, hear. (followed you from the jerkcity journal, i know stranger posts are creepy - sorry)
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

NewYorkNewYork
maddening
A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow