CENSORED: Critique against the BDSM student group at Harvard

Friday, December 7, 2012, 4:00 PM

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.”

===================================

ChrisMarks wrote:
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.”

====================================

Heather wrote (CENSORED)
December 8th, 2012 | 3:21 am

ChrisMarks wrote: “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.”

With the NAMBLA folks, this kind of rationalizing of abuse is done via the “man-boy love” label. They tell us we just can’t understand how much love is involved in their pedophilic, sexually abusive relationships with boys. It’s all a matter of lack of understanding on our part.

What people who practice BDSM don’t wish to know or to understand is how psychologically deformed THEY are in respect to sex and personal relationships.

They, like people who normalize homosexuality, promiscuity, and pornography, live by one principle only: If I get a sexual kick out of something – no matter how depraved, degenerate, deformed, disoriented, harmful, or violent – that is all that matters.

Other equally important points have already been made by Ms. Caitlin and do not need to be repeated here.

At least compared to homosexual activists, we have to say that the BDSM supporters have spared us so far saying that they were “born that way,” that “reparative therapy” for people who are sadistic and violent is harmful and should be banned, that anyone who questions their ideology is BDphobic and a bigot, and that humiliating and torturing other human beings is a “civil right” and that they will not stand being treated like second-class citizens by people who do not share their deformed psychologies regarding sexuality.

Chris admonishes us (of all things) to understand “better” the words of “Judge not lest ye be judged,” which I am sure he/she twists around to mean: be morally corrupt, unethical, silent, passive, and collusive, thus support all sin when the more preferable option of engaging in it yourself is not available.

But most of all, be corrupt in your minds and in your interpretation of the Bible, in order to do harm and sin in the world, all the while rationalizing to yourself that you’ve done nothing wrong, and wrap it all up in some kind of notion of liberation, progress, and civil rights.

==========================================

Additional comment made on my Censored blog: Curiously enough, none of the writers at FT have the ethics or the intelligence to criticize the BDSM group.

==========================================

Heather wrote on Dec 11 2012 (CENSORED)

Nickol wrote: “Let me say that in my opinion, there cannot be a serious, productive discussion of BDSM in First Thoughts.”

The comment section here isn’t for serious, productive discussions or Nickol wouldn’t be given this as his personal platform, simultaneously clearly representing certain FT editors, while the latter censor many of the opposing views.

As we can see, Nickol is the sockpuppet of certain FT editors/censors…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s