HISTSEX ARCHIVES: 1-20 March 2000
© Lesley Hall and list contributors
From: "Margaretta Jolly" <jolly@moa.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Menstruation in advertisments
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:09:22 -0000
The Mass-Observation Archive commissioned their panel of diary writers to
respond on this topic a couple of years ago. Their website is
http://www.susx.ac.uk/library/massobs
Someone was doing a phd on it at, I believe the University of Southampton.
But Mass-Obs would know.
Margaretta Jolly
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Menstruation in advertisments
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:26:48 -0000
>Someone was doing a phd on it at, I believe the University of Southampton.
I think this was more of an anthropological study (if this is the same
person who came to do some research on our materials at the Wellcome) rather
than re advertising as such. Someone else who has been doing more general
work on the history of menstruation, especially medical constructions of,
and attitudes towards, is Julie Marie Strange at the University of
Liverpool - I believe a couple of papers of hers are in the pipeline but
possibly not yet out.
There is a useful little collection of leaflets for girls or their mothers
or teachers among the Medical Women's Federation archive in the Wellcome,
which does include some commercial literature.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Menstruation in advertisments
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:52:31 -0000
I forgot to mention the website The Museum of Menstruation!
http://www.mum.org/index.html
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:48:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Lynn Romer <lynnromer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Internet Access
In my state a house bill recently passed which makes
it necessary for public libraries which receive state
funding to restrict minors' access to explicit sites
on the Web or lose that state funding. The bill does
not provide a definition for "obscene" or present
guidelines to enforce the provision.
We already have filters in place in the public school
system.
An article about the bill that ran in a newspaper said
that in the county where I live there is probably no
danger of our county libraries losing any of their
state funding due to the fact that our county already
has in place a policy that access to sexually explicit
Web sites is not appropriate for persons of any age,
not just minors.
The library's Internet policy says: "The display or
printing of pornography on library equipment is
illegal." It also says, "Users are encouraged to take
advantage of the Internet and to exercise good
judgement and discretion in their use."
The campus library policy appears to be the same as
the one Nesta quoted.
Lynn
___________________________________________________________________From: nesta_F@spcvxa.spc.edu
Subject: Re:Internet Access
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:01:56 GMT
And this just in from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
OFFICIALS AT BEAVER COLLEGE (outside of Philadelphia), tired of being the butt
of jokes because of the institution's sexually suggestive name, are thinking
about changing it. Because the current name is slang for female genitalia, some
alumni and prospective students have had trouble getting access to the
college's Web site because their computers' filtering devices prohibit viewing
of sites with sexual content.
Fred Nesta
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 19:19:51 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:Internet Access
Interesting that it was originally a woman's school and, when it went
co-ed, had a "hard" time attracting men [gee, is no language
double-edged on this list? :)] Consequently it went overboard in the
testosterone department -- big phallic symbol field house :)
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>And this just in from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
>
>OFFICIALS AT BEAVER COLLEGE (outside of Philadelphia), tired of being the butt
>of jokes because of the institution's sexually suggestive name, are thinking
>about changing it. Because the current name is slang for female
>genitalia, some
>alumni and prospective students have had trouble getting access to the
>college's Web site because their computers' filtering devices prohibit viewing
>of sites with sexual content.
>
>Fred Nesta
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 04:30:08 -0500
From: Julienne <julienne@ptd.net>
Subject: Re:pleasure in giving
At 02:13 PM 2/22/00 +1100, Hera Cook wrote:
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>Anne,
>You too have been socialised as a female in this culture - are you so
>certain that your own
>behaviour is the standard by which you should measure what does or does
>not contribute
>towards the sexual culture that has made widespread abuse possible? So
>certain that all
>that is questionable in our sexual culture is outside of your particular
>boundaries?
>In fact Marie Robinson whom I quoted would have felt that what you
>describe feeling was
>exactly what an 'ideal' woman should feel. Read the quote again:
>
>'[The wife will] get a profound satisfaction from the pleasure she is able
>to give her
>husband, the very obvious pleasure. Once more that deep altruism.'
>
>Isn't this exactly what you are talking about? The fact that this feels
>right to you is no
>different to the person to whom what you label abuse felt right or the
>battered woman who
>believed she was to blame.
>Hera
Sorry to jump in here late, but I was reading this thread with
concern and then had to go about other things in my life.
I come back tonight, and find the same concern.
I feel, Hera, that you are distorting what Anne said.
You are suggesting, despite Anne's clarification, that Anne is
suggesting a wife is only to get pleasure from giving her husband
pleasure. Anne did not say that.
To suggest that pleasure in giving is the gateway to sexual abuse seems
rather paranoid and self-defeating, to me. The pleasure in giving, and
receiving, needs to be mutual, and this is what I heard Anne say. I saw
nothing about *only* giving, or *only* the woman giving.
I am also wondering about what seems to me to be, in much of the
writing on this list, an idea that sex can be separated out from the rest
of a human being. When one does that, and forgets the emotions, the
psychology, and many other ramifications and connections of sexuality,
sexuality is somehow reduced and the life taken out of it. I don't recognize
what is sometimes described on here.
Julienne
___________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:58:28 +0100 (MET)
From: Rochus Wolff <rochus.wolff@gmx.net>
Subject: Thanks for help on ads
Hello...
I would just like to say thanks to the wonderful responses I got
on my question about Menstruation and Advertisments.
Yours, Rochus
--
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Rochus Wolff ----------- rochus.wolff@gmx.net ---
---------------------------------------------------------
--- St John's College --- Oxford OX1 3JP --- UK ---
--- Pho: 0044-1865-558843 Fax: 0049-89-2443-76347 ---
---------------------------------------------------------
"Play safe; worship only in clockwise direction; let's
all have fun together." (Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire)
___________________________________________________________________From: manohar@sangama.ilban.ernet.in
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:05:33
Subject: MASCULINITY IN CRISIS
Dear friend(s)
CSCS (Centre for the Study of Culture and Society) and SANGAMA invite you
to a TALK on 'MASCULINITY IN CRISIS - HOMOSOCIALITY AND HOMOEROTICISM IN
INDIAN PARALLEL CINEMA'
By THOMAS WAUGH, A CANADIAN FILM CRITIC AND PROFESSOR
Date: 10TH MARCH 2000, FRIDAY
Time: 4.30 PM
Venue: CSCS, 1192, 35th B Cross, 28th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore,
India - 560 041. Tel: 6653145, Email: admin@cscsban.org
Mr. Waugh has taught film studies in the BFA and MA at Concordia University,
Montreal, since 1976, as well as offering interdisciplinary curriculum on
HIV/AIDS and queer theory. His books are "SHOW US LIFE": TOWARD A HISTORY
AND AESTHETICS OF THE COMMITTED DOCUMENTARY (Scarecrow, 1984); HARD TO
IMAGINE: GAY MALE EROTICISM IN PHOTOGRAPHY AND FILM FROM THEIR BEGINNINGS
TO STONEWALL (Columbia U.P., 1996); THE FRUIT MACHINE: TWENTY YEARS OF
WRITING ON QUEER CINEMA (Duke U.P., 2000). He has taught and published
widely on the national cinemas of India as well as of Canada.
HOW TO REACH CSCS: Ask for Sudarshan Vidya Mandir (S. V. M.) or Tilak Nagar
Police Station near the 4th T Block Bus Depot. The CSCS office is at one
corner of the park where these are situated.
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:43:16 +0000
From: Ianthe <ianthe@duende.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Henry David Thoreau & Edmund Sewall ?
The 'Famous Gays of History, etc' text, found on the web,
gives mention of Thoreau, thus...
>Henry David Thoreau 1817-1862 [see Katz on this]
> and Edmund Sewall
What is the Katz article/essay/book that this refers to?
Yours,
--
Ianthe Duende
___________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:13:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa Diguardi <diguardi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Henry David Thoreau & Edmund Sewall ?
See "Gay American History" revised edition pages
481-494.
-Lisa
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:35:58 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: the gentler sex
Does anyone have any thoughts about the origins of the notion of
woman as "the gentler sex"? While I imagine/fantasize it's
Victorian, I'm sitting here at home, plugging away at the computer,
without recourse to my usual panoply of reference texts.
With thanks to the list, I remain a member of the less gentle sex,
Bob Bambic
___________________________________________________________________From: "Dionne Stephens" <dionne@arches.uga.edu>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:43:41 -0500
I think that is part of the idea that men are aggressive by nature. The
recent debate over a study that men are biologically programmed to rape
really addressed the origins of this.
Dionne
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:55:04 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Dionne, do you recall the specifics of the citation?
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall"<lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:21:30 gmt
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
>Does anyone have any thoughts about the origins of the notion of
>woman as "the gentler sex"? While I imagine/fantasize it's
>Victorian
I should guess it to be pre-Victorian by some if not a large degree - cf Sir
Walter Scott 'Woman, in our hours of ease, uncertain, coy and hard to please,
When pain and anguish wring the brow, A ministr'ing angel thou', and the hymn
about can a woman's tender care cease towards the child she bare? It must have
been enough of a truism by the late C19th for Kipling to be subversive in suggesting
that the female of the species is more deadly than the male. Recent book by
Judith Knelman, 'Twisting in the Wind' on Victorian cases of murder by women
tends to suggest that their transgression of this assumed norm made for much
of the horror these cases evoked. But I'm not sure when/how the notion of women
as a _weaker_ sex segues into the idea that they were _gentler_. Maybe during
the C18th? (increasing sentimentalisation) On the other hand, in Shakespeare,
characters like Lady Macbeth and Goneril and Regan are seen as 'unnatural' in
cruelty and bloodthirstiness.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
homepage: http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:45:17 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Thanks Leslie, but I guess I am particularly interesting in the
specific wording, "the gentler sex," although the info on "the weaker
sex" is also helpful.
> >Does anyone have any thoughts about the origins of the notion of
> >woman as "the gentler sex"? While I imagine/fantasize it's
> >Victorian
>
>I should guess it to be pre-Victorian by some if not a large degree - cf Sir
>Walter Scott 'Woman, in our hours of ease, uncertain, coy and hard to please,
>When pain and anguish wring the brow, A ministr'ing angel thou',
Is this the title of the poem? or just the stanza?
>and the hymn
>about can a woman's tender care cease towards the child she bare?
Is this also Scott?
>It must have
>been enough of a truism by the late C19th for Kipling to be
>subversive in suggesting
>that the female of the species is more deadly than the male.
And he does this where?
>Recent book by
>Judith Knelman, 'Twisting in the Wind' on Victorian cases of murder by women
>tends to suggest that their transgression of this assumed norm made for much
>of the horror these cases evoked. But I'm not sure when/how the
>notion of women
>as a _weaker_ sex segues into the idea that they were _gentler_.
Indeed.
>Maybe during
>the C18th? (increasing sentimentalisation) On the other hand, in Shakespeare,
>characters like Lady Macbeth and Goneril and Regan are seen as 'unnatural' in
>cruelty and bloodthirstiness.
I wonder if they're also "unnatural" according to male norms.
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:52:42 -0000
It's possible the Oxford English Dictionary might give the date for early
refs to 'gentler sex' meaning women? (Not that this is a reference source
most people have immediately to hand)
No idea who wrote the 'child she bear' hymn (not Scott, I would surmise)
The Kipling poem is called (as I recollect) 'The Female of the Species'
Re 'unnatural' women in Shakespeare - I suspect textual analysis would
indicate that the men are not represented as 'unnatural' for resorting to
violence (only when this is intrafamilial, as with Edmund in King Lear)
whereas women are. The women are 'unnatural' for behaving more like men...
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:07:51 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
>It's possible the Oxford English Dictionary might give the date for early
>refs to 'gentler sex' meaning women? (Not that this is a reference source
>most people have immediately to hand)
I had thought about that. I have the edition for which you need a
magnifying glass. But I sometimes find the OED is not particularly
good on phrases.
>No idea who wrote the 'child she bear' hymn (not Scott, I would surmise)
>The Kipling poem is called (as I recollect) 'The Female of the Species'
Thank you.
>Re 'unnatural' women in Shakespeare - I suspect textual analysis would
>indicate that the men are not represented as 'unnatural' for resorting to
>violence (only when this is intrafamilial, as with Edmund in King Lear)
>whereas women are. The women are 'unnatural' for behaving more like men...
While I'm not a Shakespearean scholar, I'm not sure I would concur.
Indeed "Lady Macbeth and Goneril and Regan are seen as 'unnatural' in
cruelty and
bloodthirstiness," hence they may possess certain extreme masculine
characteristics. While perhaps even in Shakespeare's time cruelty &
bloodthirstiness were recognized as "masculine" characteristics, they
certainly weren't recognized as a "norm" for the male, were they?
And yet aren't these women traditionally "feminine" in other
stereotypical ways, e. g. scheming, conniving, envious? That is, do
they represent the "worst" of both genders? But of course here we've
moved beyond a simple examination of "the gentler sex."
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:24:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Lois Patterson <****@****>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Here's a reference in Edgar Allen Poe's story, The
System of Dr. Tarr and Prof. Fether:
"Indeed! I have always understood that the
majority of lunatics were of the gentler sex."
"It is generally so, but not always. Some time
ago, there were about twenty-seven patients here; and,
of that number, no less than eighteen were women; but,
lately, matters have changed very much, as you see."
(I should introduce myself sometime soon, and will,
after having lurked here for more than a year!)
Lois Patterson
___________________________________________________________________From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 22:04:01 -0000
Although the phrase "the gentle(r) sex" was indeed popular from about 1840
to 1900 (and seems to be an example of the Victorian penchant for using
circumambient polite terms rather than call a spade a spade, or, in this
case, a female a female), it does in fact go back much earlier and was
fairly widely used. The Oxford English Dictionary cites a quotation using
the phrase before 1616, in a play by Beaumont and Fletcher; in Stubbs's
Anatomy of Abuses in 1583; in Shakespeare's Lucretia in 1593; etc. The term
"gentle(r)" doesn't seem to have been used in the sense of "weaker", but in
the sense of "soft" i.e. "tender". It was generally believed that women were
more compassionate, more humane, and more reserved than men -- which during
most periods was a fairly accurate observation rather than a fantasy.
--
Rictor Norton
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/rcnorton.htm
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:06:04 -0800
From: Jack Kolb <kolb@ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Here's something from the OED2, under "gentle":
8. Of persons: Mild in disposition or behaviour; kind, tender. Also of
language, actions, etc. Freq. in phr. a gentle hint. the gentle(r) sex: the
female sex.
1552 Huloet, s.v., To waxe Gentle, exeuio, mansuesco.
1583 Stubbs Anat. Abuses E vij b, Yet (such is ye magnificency &
liberalitie of that gentle sex) that I trust I shall not be vnrewarded at
their hands.
1725 Pope Odyss. xx. 388 A long cessation of discourse ensued, By gentler
Agelaus thus renewed.
1812 J. Wilson Isle of Palms ii. 307 But to yon gentle Maiden turn, Who
never for herself doth mourn.
1839_40 W. Irving Wolfert's R. (1855) 83 It is somewhat remarkable that_the
gentler sex should have been most frequently the subjects of these rude trials.
Jack Kolb
Dept. of English, UCLA
kolb@ucla.edu
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:21:53 -0500
From: David Nicholas Harley <David.N.Harley.4@nd.edu>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
>>It's possible the Oxford English Dictionary might give the date for early
>>refs to 'gentler sex' meaning women? (Not that this is a reference source
>>most people have immediately to hand)
>
>I had thought about that. I have the edition for which you need a
>magnifying glass. But I sometimes find the OED is not particularly
>good on phrases.
David Harley:
Under 'gentle' a. & n., a quotation from Stubbes, Anatomy of Abuses, 1583:
'Yet (such is ye magnificency & liberalitie of that gentle sex) that I
trust I shall not be unrewarded at their hands." A briefer quote from this
under 'sex', n.
Other entries ('gentle', a & n.; 'sorrow', v.; step, v.; trainer) are from
the mid-19th century, although there are earlier equivalents, such as
'softer sex'. The first 19th-century use supplied is from Blackwood's
magazine, 1.470 (1817), under 'demulceate', v.: 'Gallantry...or the exalted
science of demulceating the amiable reservedness...of the gentler sex.'
___________________________________________________________________Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:55:56 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
While indeed my *fantasy* was Victorian, I certainly never
"fantasized" its meaning as "weaker," as indeed I took it to be
"tender." I imagine "gentle" bears some Eurolinguistic relation to
the Italian "gentile," with its usages as a form of polite address,
an epistolary salutation, and in the sense of the English "nice" --
the latter a word whose meaning is often forgotten & seldom
experienced on certain lists :)
Bob
___________________________________________________________________Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:00:08 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the gentler sex
Ah, a scholar ... and a gentleman. Thanks Jack, I appreciate it --
and thanks to all the other gentilissimi signori :)
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Seek information on fetish
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 16:06:30 -0000
Some years ago I wrote an article for the forthcoming (_still_ forthcoming!)
Oxford Companion to the Body on fetishism from the historical aspect. Here
are some selections and references (if anyone is interested in the complete
article let me know and I'll send a copy, but I'm not sure of the copyright
implications of posting the entire thing here {which is something I'm
currently checking out with OUP as I'd like to put 2-3 of these articles at
present in limbo up on my website}):
'The concept of erotic fetishism originated with the French psychologist
Alfred Binet (better known for his work on intelligence testing) in an
article published in 1887 in the Revue Philosophique, and was given further
currency by the Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. However the idea was
put into wider circulation by the great collator of sexually diverse
practices, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, in his Psychopathia Sexualis (first
published in 1886 and appearing in many later editions and translations). He
defined erotic fetishism (differing somewhat from these earlier writers) as
associating strong emotions of sexual pleasure with physical or mental
qualities of, or even objects used by, a beloved person, and considered this
part of normal sexual attraction.....
'Krafft-Ebing attributed the development of fetishism to some event whereby
erotic feelings became associated with some particular body part or object,
still today usually considered to play a significant part in its aetiology.
While invoking environmental circumstances, he also suggested that
individuals who formed these bizarre associations were predisposed to
psychopathic states and excessive sexual desire, in keeping with his
theories about the role of degenerate heredity and neuropathy in the
aetiology of sexual disorders. Recent writers on the subject, e.g. John
Bancroft in Human Sexuality and its Problems (1989), cite experimental
demonstration that the male erectile response is capable of being
conditioned to react to unusual stimuli. The reason why the conditioned
response to particular stimuli which results in the formation of a fetish is
so much more prevalent in the male may be, Bancroft suggests, because of the
obviousness of penile erection. This sets up an unmissable visual and
sensory link between the object of the stimulus and sexual arousal. Women
may be less likely to identify pleasurable feelings invoked by certain
objects or textures as specifically sexual ....
'There continue to be various definite areas of fetishistic interest,
which, however, change over time. Krafft-Ebing considered hand- fetishism
common, but Bancroft reports this as now extremely infrequent. Feet,
however, and shoes, remain an area of considerable interest. Rubber is not
mentioned by Krafft-Ebing as of particular interest alongside furs, velvet
and silk, but the twentieth century has seen the rise of a definite
sub-group of rubber fetishists....
'The fetish may be associated with other minority sexual practices: in
descriptions of the pleasures of rubber it is not always clear whether it is
the sensation of rubber against the skin or the sense of being tightly bound
in this clinging substance which is the main component of the sexual kick.
Fetishism may be overtly combined with sado-masochist rituals: Maurice
North, in his study of rubber fetishism, The Outer Fringe of Sex (1970)
notes the pervasive elements of domination in fantasies written for the
rubber market, and that rubber fetishism is but one component in a
'syndrome' including boots, leather, PVC, and sado-masochistic
tendencies....
'While many of the statistically less common forms of sexual behaviour can
be shown to have been practised by individuals throughout the course of
human history, even if they were not conceptualised as sexual perversions,
fetishism is not so readily detected before its identification by late
nineteenth century sexologists. It is merely conjectural that it was the
'liquefaction' of Julia's silks rather than Julia which allured Robert
Herrick, that the abundant and curling tresses celebrated by poets were the
real focus of attraction. Impotence occurring when the fetish was not
present brought it occasionally to medical attention but in many cases its
significance was probably not recognised. It has seldom figured in divorce
proceedings. Krafft-Ebing noted that it did, however, have forensic
implications in cases of fetishists compelled to steal the items of their
desire, but again, the erotic motivation may not have been recognised before
he pointed it out. North, in his study, was writing at the time of the
'Permissive Society', when a certain degree of 'kinkiness' was fashionable
and designers incorporated themes (such as high boots) from the sexual
underworld, but he found nevertheless that rubber fetishism was largely a
hidden deviance, kept deeply secret by its practitioners because of their
own shame: this may also apply to other fetishes.'
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 22:42:29 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Seek information on fetish
Hello,
I am a post grad sociology student with a background in pychiatric
nursing.
I am doing some preliminary research on doctoral topics.
One of these topics is of common fetishes and the sociological origin of
their content.
I am seeking opinions on
a) the frequency of the social occurrence of
b) the origin of
c) literature on
control fetishes involving specifically:
persuading female partners not to wear underpants inside and outside the
home
but to wear suspender belts and black stockings at all times, including
whilst sleeping.
So far the only literature I have come accross is psychiatric literature
about obsessive compulsive behaviour involving a wide range of sexual
variations as well as other non-sexual obsessive compulsive behaviour.
Sincerely,
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:14:32 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: Seek information on fetish
Hullo Lesley,
Thank you for your rapid response to my query.
I would be interested in a copy of the complete article you mention. Are you
able to email it to me?
I see that in my post the control aspect of the fetish I describe doesn't really
come out. Although the clothing aspect is fixed and symbolic, the greatest
impact is in the ability of the fetishist to control the person they succeed in
persuading to adhere to their rules.
I wonder if the practice in some Islamic countries of women being made to wear
certain clothing and follow the orders of men in that society could be construed
as an institutionalized cultural fetish?
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 04:35:07 EST
Subject: fetish and control
In a message dated 3/12/00 05:19:20 GMT Standard Time,
smnaesp@alphalink.com.au writes:
<< Although the clothing aspect is fixed and symbolic, the greatest
impact is in the ability of the fetishist to control the person they succeed
in
persuading to adhere to their rules. >>
Dear Sheila
Sorry to butt in here, but I find the assumptions of your model of fetish
very problematic, since you seem to imply an abusive relationship where
desire travels in one direction only. Control may indeed constitute a
fundamental part of a fetishistic relationship, but so does consent and
collusion. If a fetishistic act or attire isn't mutually enjoyed, or at the
very least agreed to by both parties, then we are talking about something
very different, an act of physical or psychological violence. Also it is not
necessary to have anyone else participating or even in the know that a fetish
is operating, if it concerns something that one would encounter in 'everyday'
life, eg, in one instance I have come across, bra straps which escape from
clothing which was a very potent stimulant for the person whose fetish it
was, which could occur anywhere at any time. And the bra wearer would be none
the wiser.
Chris White
___________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:06:40 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Okay to clarify Chris, thanks.
The specific kind of fetish I am thinking of studying does require the other
person to cooperate, not like accidental bra strap glimpsing. But it requires
the person to co-operate almost all the time, night and day, otherwise the
fetishist would withdraw their affection. Presumably their affection is
important. There is definitely a strong element of domination and control and no
doubt, psychological violence. It is not just a role the lovers slip in and out
of. So it is a fetish with a strong control feature. It is always there but the
couple may have quite a full life around it or despite it.
Is it not possible to conceive of a situation where the controlling fetishist was
in a situation of mutual attraction but unfortunately the object of his desire
was not interested in the fetish and only allowed it in order to retain affection
or to avoid strong disapproval?
Sorry if I sound naive. I have encountered two severe cases like this (outside
Islam) in patients with apparently unrelated problems, one further case involving
an Islamic husband (so it sort of fitted into the culture of control), and I have
heard anecdotal stories from a couple of wives who say their husbands would like
them to constantly dress in black stockings, suspender belts and no underpants.
Apparently they do this from time to time, but not a lot of the time, so the
domination is quite attenuated. So I have tentatively concluded that the
practice may be quite widespread.
Lesley had something to say about unusually highly sexed persons having
fetishes. It seems to me that this could be a factor, at least in the cases
where there is a requirement that the female constantly wear the prescribed
costume.
The similarities persist in social explanations given for imposing certain
costumes on women in some Islamic societies where the women basically have little
choice but the male classes that impose this clothing and control (purdah) on
them say that the society does it out of love or for the women's protection.
Some women resist, some collude. Resistance is discouraged by punishment of one
kind or another.
What do you think?
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:46:02 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Hi Sheila
Interesting. Do those involved in the relationships you have in mind
self-define as fetishists? Certainly the model I was invoking of
consensuality comes from (sub-)cultural formations where participants
acknowledge the fetishistic nature of their acts and desires and explicitly
enter into negotiation around them. It is not uncommon in such relationships
for one partner to agree to experiment with something which does nothing for
them in order to give pleasure to the other. If it then proved anathema to
them, it would be/should be discarded as a no-go area, a hard limit perhaps.
What you are describing seems closer to 24/7 lifestyle fetish, but it may be
that self-definition here is important. To self-define involves entering
(implicitly if not explicitly) into the safe-sane-consensual paradigm of
BDSM. To keep the fetish at the level of 'this is something that turns me on
and if you love me you'll do it for me' maybe constructs it not as a fetish
but something more akin to the old conjugal rights business.
Lifestyle fetishists tend to be a very exclusive/exclusionary bunch and get
very sniffy about people who merely 'play' at fetish sex. Whether they are
unusually highly sexed, I can't say :) but they seem to inscribe identity as
a fixed category for both parties, and the identities on offer either
reproduce patriachal norms or invert them wholesale, keeping the binary
safely in place. The suspenders-in-bed appears to rest upon a particular
version of femininity (even if the male is wearing them) and maybe brings
with it the psychological maintenance/inversion of gender power.
You've got me thinking now :)
Chris
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Seek information on fetish
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:13:45 -0000
I 'll send you the full text of the article. Incidentally, _I_ didn't say
anything about fetishists being highly sexed - this was a brief
summarisation of Krafft-Ebing's theories. To cite someone's ideas in an
historical overview of a subject is not to concur with or endorse those
ideas. My feeling from reading more recent authorities on the subject would
be that they tend to make an opposite interpretation, that fetishism is to
some extent a defence against impotence-fears.
Like Chris White, I'm rather dubious whether what you describe is fetishism
merely - it seems to go off into wider areas of power and control, dominance
and submission, authority etc, which may be allied to fetishism but are not
necessarily co-terminous with it. But as I have argued in the full article,
some cultures by their emphasis on certain bodily parts, forms of clothing
etc, as understandable sexual attractants, tend to 'mask' fetishistic
attachments to these particular phenomena.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 23:26:20 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Dear Chris,
I shall attempt to respond to some of your questions where I know the answers. A
number of concepts you raise are quite new to me; I can see I have wandered
blithely into quite a complex area.
Kazetnik@aol.com wrote:
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> Hi Sheila
>
> Interesting. Do those involved in the relationships you have in mind
> self-define as fetishists?
I would doubt it. I don't think such insight is usually present. They would
tend to rationalise their ritualising behaviour.
> Certainly the model I was invoking of
> consensuality comes from (sub-)cultural formations where participants
> acknowledge the fetishistic nature of their acts and desires and explicitly
> enter into negotiation around them.
There obviously has to be some negotiation, some dialogue. If it is a full time
sort of thing then I presume all kinds of conventions would arise and ongoing
negotiations. But I don't think you can assume as a rule that communication is
all that straightforward. You could be talking about people who think very
little about what they do, except to find ways of perpetuating it.
> It is not uncommon in such relationships
> for one partner to agree to experiment with something which does nothing for
> them in order to give pleasure to the other. If it then proved anathema to
> them, it would be/should be discarded as a no-go area, a hard limit perhaps.
That would require enormous discipline in someone whose concept of fulfilling sex
required more or less constant performance of these rituals/adherence to these
rules (of clothing). My impression is that much of the person's personality and
energy has integrated into this kind of ?control fetish. I wonder if they would
be able to abandon such a large part of their lives and ?values.
>
>
> What you are describing seems closer to 24/7 lifestyle fetish,
?? Do you mean 24 hours, 7 days a week?? In which case, yes.
> but it may be
> that self-definition here is important.
Why do you think self definition is important? Maybe I have some understanding
but I could use some clarification if you have time.
> To self-define involves entering
> (implicitly if not explicitly) into the safe-sane-consensual paradigm of
> BDSM.
Okay, so does this mean that the BDSM (?Bondage Discipline Sado Masochism)
practitioners work out some kind of boundaries and rules (implicit) whereby they
a) preserve a measure of safety and b) don't get reality confused with fantasy,
i.e. preserve personal and social function? Or are there other reasons, factors?
> To keep the fetish at the level of 'this is something that turns me on
> and if you love me you'll do it for me' maybe constructs it not as a fetish
> but something more akin to the old conjugal rights business.
Hmm. That seems to fit. Tell me, is this all in the context of rationalisation
in order to get what one wants or do you think the "old conjugal rights business"
has some kind of sociological or biosociological function, maybe at a neuronal
level? I mean, is this a con so that the person gets their own way or is it just
a variation on human hardwiring? Another way of putting it is, is it anti-social
or social? Is it schizoid/autistic or affective/intimate? (Sorry about the
choices of labels; I'm quite new to this sort of thing).
>
>
> Lifestyle fetishists tend to be a very exclusive/exclusionary bunch and get
> very sniffy about people who merely 'play' at fetish sex.
Well, that is interesting. I had never heard of the concept of lifestyle
fetishists.
> Whether they are
> unusually highly sexed, I can't say :)
[was that a lop-sided smile?]
> but they seem to inscribe identity as
> a fixed category for both parties,
Don't they ever get sick of their assigned role? It's hard to believe that you'd
be able to find that many dyads where both were quite happy to go along with such
prescriptive practices; I would have assumed that in almost all cases one would
be dominating the other the cement in the relationship would be something like
insecurity and a craving for affection and approval or even through fear of
physical harm. But then, one of my questions to the forum was about the
frequency of such "?lifestyle control fetishes".
> and the identities on offer either
> reproduce patriachal norms or invert them wholesale, keeping the binary
> safely in place. The suspenders-in-bed appears to rest upon a particular
> version of femininity (even if the male is wearing them) and maybe brings
> with it the psychological maintenance/inversion of gender power.
This leads me back to the issue of symbolic content. I am amazed that femininity
can be reduced to the symbols of suspenders-in-bed, but obviously it can be in a
certain kind of relationship and this ideal of femininity seems to be intricately
bound up with a highly energized, but partial or fragmentary self concept.
Here I am thinking of heterosexual relationships since the need for such
symbolism is easier to understand in homosexual relationships, but you would
think that secondary sexual characteristics in a heterosexual couple would make
such symbolism redundant. This probably shows me to be hopelessly naive.
>
>
> You've got me thinking now :)
Thanks, your ideas are very useful.
>
>
Just to remind anyone reading this, I am seeking the sociological origin of the
content of these control fetishes/lifestyles (specifically:
persuading female partners not to wear underpants inside and outside the home but
to wear suspender belts and black stockings at all times, including whilst
sleeping. I am also seeking opinions on the frequency of the social occurrence
of them, the sociological or other origin of them, and explanatory literature
about them.
So, do you have any ideas as to the frequency of this phenomenon, any impression,
say, per 1000 persons? Or is that a ridiculous question?
Also, when you talk of lifestyle fetishists as being a bit "sniffy" about
amateurs, this implies that the lifestylers get together and discuss this kind of
thing. I would have thought, however, that dyads like this would tend to be
quite insular (except maybe homosexual ones - I had rather hoped to keep this to
male female, so as to preserve the sociological possibility of translating this
into cultural practices) - however. Do you know of any netspaces devoted to
this kind of thing where I might find more subjects and material?
Many thanks for all these ideas,
Sheila
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:22:56 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Hi Sheila
(This is a heck of a lot more interesting than doing what I'm supposed to be
doing. Less nauseating too....)
24/7 -- yes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I have attempted to get such
lifestylers to explain to me (a) how they sustain the role-play and (b) how
the thrill is sustained. So far, no reply that I find satisfactory has been
forthcoming.
BDSM -- a portmanteau term for Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and
Submission, Sadism and Masochism.
Safety remains paramount in all BDSM relationships and is engineered through
explicitly granted consent out of negotiation (although inevitably there is
considerable potential for forced consent). In 24/7 it is less a question of
there being a fantasy/reality binary than different levels of intensity
operating throughout the day. So, to cite one couple I know through
cyber-correspondence, he is Dom and she is sub 24/7, which translates into
her submitting to his will in all things, and for breaches of obedience,
corporal punishment is used. They have children, jobs, and all the other
'normal' things, but if he invokes his authority as Dom, and as she has
consented to submit as a lifetime contract, she must submit to him. Their
contract combines both D/s that they find erotic, and D/s that is used to
exercise real, practical power. She may be chastised because it turns them
both on, or because she is late home. This is a not uncommon structure in
lifestyle fetish. But what the lived reality would be like, I have no idea.
Sounds both dull and daft to me. But then other people's fetishes always
do.... If you want to experience exactly how sniffy these people can be I'd
recommend trying out some of the discussion lists to be found at onelist. The
British BDSM list can be highly entertaining... :-/ And while one cannot
generalize about the insularity of such relationships, there is a highly
developed club and party culture (worldwide from what I can gather) where the
roles and fetishes will be played out in public. One excellent netspace which
might prove informative for your work is Submissive Women Speak:
http://gloria-brame.com/subbook.htm
which is a forum for both 'amateurs'/part-timers and lifestylers.
I would certainly see conjugal rights as a sociological/cultural construct
which can be re-made to incorporate elements that have little obviously to do
with procreative sex.
I think self-definition is important: it is, in BDSM relationships, most
common for the fetish to precede the relationship. Where there is an attempt
to introduce a fetish into a pre-existing relationship, most practitioners
will tell anecdotes of an unsympathetic response and often relationship
breakdown. Not always, but often. If one has defined oneself as being
fetishistic, the dialogue is a different one than if one has not described
this as a part of identity, but only as an act. Eeek! Now I'm getting muddled
myself. Have to think about that some more.
I, incidently, am at this moment involved in a mini-project at the far end of
fetish behaviour. Snuff fiction. Now that is not nice....
Best wishes
Chris White
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:56:55 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Kazetnik@aol.com wrote:
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> Hi Sheila
>
> (This is a heck of a lot more interesting than doing what I'm supposed to be
> doing. Less nauseating too....)
>
Reading what you are researching I can understand that you would be looking for
distractions.
>
>
> I, incidently, am at this moment involved in a mini-project at the far end of
> fetish behaviour. Snuff fiction. Now that is not nice...
Once I looked up necrophilia on the net. It gave me the creeps. I remember
however that one guy wrote that it didn't matter how ugly you were, a corpse
would accept you. I also remember reading a psychiatrist's explanation for
Jeffrey Damer (can't remember the spelling - he killed a lot of people in his
apartment, mainly homosexuals he had invited in on various pretexts) killing. It
was that he was so lonely he could not bear for people to leave and he was so
socially withdrawn and inept that the closest he could get was to a dead person.
(I must say I associate that kind of mixture of violence, sexuality and
alienation with alcoholism. I used to work in a detox and the literature was
pretty off; same with narcotics addicts, only the style was different. This
makes me think that different drugs do different things to the brain and affect
sexuality.)
I must say I find that kind of thing horribly depressing and black. I now avoid
it totally.
All the best to you and thanks for your interpretations.
I shall look up those net addresses.
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 10:22:52 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Sheila, this just turned up in my in-box. Before deleting it I thought you'd
enjoy a taste of how specific fetishes can be, how control may function in
erotic fetish, and how keen people are to share 'em....
"Hi, all...
I have started a new e-group. Here's the info:
Some are attracted to punishment & discipline of the feet (like me).
Others have a medical fetish (also like me.) This group is a
combination of the two.
If you find the idea of a pair of vulnerable, bare feet on a doctor's
examination or operating table erotic, this is the group for you!
Pictures, discussion, and stories related to foot examination, and
medical procedures on the feet (injections, surgery, etc.) are
welcome.
YOU MUST BE 21 OR OLDER TO JOIN THIS GROUP.
Here's the URL: http://www.egroups.com/group/medical-foot-fetish"
Enjoy! Or not :)
Chris
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:22:54 -0000
I've just remembered the following survey, published by 2 psychiatrists from
the Institute of Psychiatry, University of London, in 1980 (probably about
the earliest one could present this as a legitimate research project in the
UK?):
Chris Gosselin and Glenn Wilson: Sexual Variations - Fetishism, Transvestism
and Sad-masochism (London, Faber and Faber, 1980)
>From a quick scan it looks as though they confined their 'fetishism' sample
to leather and rubber interests. While they acquired their 'specialist'
samples by contacting interest groups and organisations, they did also have
a control group of sexually 'normal' individuals - I'm not sure how they a)
identified and b) located these. They used both questionnaires and
interviews in this survey.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 15:43:39 +0000
From: Ianthe <ianthe@duende.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Naples - exhibition of censored art, not seen for 200 years
"A collection of pornographic art from Pompeii and
Herculaneum, which has rarely seen the light of day
since ancient times, is to be permanently displayed in
Naples. It includes lewd amulets, oil lamps, paintings,
reliefs and other objects unearthed since the 18th
century. They were excluded from public exhibitions
for most of the past 200 years, but will be unveiled
later this month (March 2000) at the Naples
Archaeological Museum, Italy, where they have been
kept locked up."
--
Ianthe Duende
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Donna Larsen" <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 12:11:48 PST
Okay, so does this mean that the BDSM (?Bondage Discipline Sado Masochism)
practitioners work out some kind of boundaries and rules (implicit) whereby
they a) preserve a measure of safety and b) don't get reality confused with
fantasy, i.e. preserve personal and social function? Or are there other
reasons, factors?
I can answer this one for you, because I am a lifestyle BDSM er who is is a
triad, and we are 24/7 Dom/sub. I am dom, and my spouses are both my subs.
Yes BDSM practiioners spend lots of time negotiating rules, and boundries,
for all the reasons that you mentioned. If it is for a specific short term
scene, the negotiation can take a shorter time say a few minutes to a few
hours, depending on the complexity of the scene and/or how well the partners
know each other. Also specific scenes are how those who eventually become
live-in partners get to know each other. If they continue seeing each other
and decide they want to enter into more of a D/S vs a BDSM relationship (for
many there is a big difference between the two.) then negotiation is much
more detailed and can take weeks or longer, and many continue to renegotiate
through out the relationship. Another reason for negotiation is so that
everyone gets their needs met from the relationship, and/or scene.
You also asked if people can burn out in there roles. The answer is yes it
does happen sometimes. Also though some also itdentify as a switch, someone
who enjoys both roles. This can work two ways those in more of a BDSM
relationship tend to switch roles with each other, ie, I am the dom this
week next week you be the dom. I know alot of people who are in Poly
relationships who will be one with their spouse and have other partners who
are the opposite role.
I hope this gives you some valuble insite, and please feel free to ask more
questions.
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 17:06:56 -0500
From: David Nicholas Harley <David.N.Harley.4@nd.edu>
Subject: Stone on the family, a further note
Further to our discussion of antidotes to L.Stone's history of the family,
a little while ago, an addendum: I have just come across an interesting
critique of Stone's rhetoric and argumentation (and by implication those of
his social historical critics too) in a book unlikely to have been read by
most social historians:
Mark Poster, Cultural History and Postmodernity (Columbia U.P., 1997) pp.
14-37.
David Harley,
Dept. of History,
University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
tel.: 219-631-7789
___________________________________________________________________From: "ronsin" <Francis.Ronsin@ehess.fr>
Subject: RE: fetish and control
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:57:14 +0100
Sheila,
Si cela vous est possible, vous devriez lire l'excellente préface de Gilles
Deleuze à une récente traduction française de " La Madone aux fourrures " de
Sacher-Masoch.
Francis Ronsin
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:30:08 +0000
From: cristina santos <cristina@sonata.fe.uc.pt>
Subject: equality concerns
I've just received the following message asking for oue participation in a
struggle for a more equitative and inclusive society. I believe you
wouldn´t want to miss this oportunuty to - who knows? - make a difference
(or at least staend a point). So, here it is.
All the best,
Cristina
-----Original Message-----
Date: 10 March 2000 12:25
Subject: EQUALITY
Subject: Vermont Legislation
Vermont needs help...
As you may know, the Supreme Court of Vermont recently ruled that committed
homosexual relationships should have the same rights and privileges afforded
to married heterosexual couples. There are over 1,000 rights that come with
marriage which are currently denied to gay couples including hospital
visitation/medical decisions, rights of survivorship, filing joint tax
returns, etc. etc.
This is a VERY important first step towards equality in America. However,
the Governor's office of Vermont has been BOMBARDED with phone calls by
anti-gay individuals opposing the recent decision -- primarily fuelled by
the "Doctor Laura" radio program which gave out the phone number.
At present the Vermont Governor's office, only a HANDFUL of callers who
SUPPORT this huge step towards equal rights have contacted his office.
Please add your name to the following list.
COPY this into a new e-mail, and send it to your friends. When the list
reaches 25 people, please send it to ltgov@leg.state.vt.us
Dear Lieutenant Governor Douglas A. Racine,
We the undersigned deeply support your move to have equal rights for same
sex partners. You have taken a historical step towards mending the many
fractures that divide our society. The following list is comprised of people
from all walks of life, from straight to gay. Thank you for your continued
support and your forward-thinking politics.
1. Laurie Moser, Pittsburgh, PA
2. Paige Beal, Pittsburgh, PA
3. Lisa Everett, Pittsburgh, PA
4. Nancy Klancher, Pittsburgh, PA
5. Michelle Wright, Pittsburgh PA
6. Katherine Lieber, NYC
7. Julie Gozan, Norman, OK
8. Benjamin L. Alpers, Norman, OK
9. Andrew Horton, Norman, OK
10. Russell Campbell, Wellington, New Zealand
11. Bill Logan, Wellington, New Zealand
12. Chris Pugsley, Wellington, New Zealand
13. Kris Ericksen, Wellington, New Zealand
14. Gill Dunne, Cambridge, UK
15. Revd Samuel McBratney, Spalding, UK
16. Chris Pulling, Spalding, UK
17. Mark Newman, Cambridge, UK
18. Diana Aitchison, Cambridge, UK
19. Vicky Lee, North London, UK
20. Stephen Whittle, Manchester, UK
21. Ana Cristina Santos, Coimbra, Portugal
Ana Cristina Santos
Centre for Social Studies
Apartado 3087
3001-401 Coimbra - Portugal
Phone 00 351 239855583
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:22:38 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Cher Francis,
Il s'agit de quoi, cette traduction, s'il vous plait?
Sheila
ronsin wrote:
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> Sheila,
> Si cela vous est possible, vous devriez lire l'excellente préface de Gilles
> Deleuze à une récente traduction française de " La Madone aux fourrures " de
> Sacher-Masoch.
> Francis Ronsin
>
> ___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:31:21 -0600
From: "M.E. Buszek" <buszekme@chickmail.com>
Subject: Re: equality concerns
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:30:08 cristina santos wrote:
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>I've just received the following message asking for oue participation in a
>struggle for a more equitative and inclusive society. I believe you
>wouldn4t want to miss this oportunuty to - who knows? - make a difference
>(or at least staend a point).
Hi, all...
Surely like many on this listserv, (and other individuals to whom it was sent by Ms. Santos) I agree that Vermont's legislation was on the right track in acknowledging homosexual relationships. However, unless an e-petition is being filtered through a party that is eliminating multiple signatures (inevitable when one is sending the same petition out to dozens of people), E-MAIL PETITIONS ARE INEFFECTUAL. They also take on a life of their own years down the line.
If one looks at the following URL--about the debacle as a result of one well-intentioned
National Public Radio fan starting an e-petition--I think one might get a better sense of why this
is, and why one should hesitate before sending such petitions out:
http://urbanlegends.miningco.com/culture/urbanlegends/library/weekly/aa052798.htm
Thanks!
Maria-Elena Buszek
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:36:50 -0600
From: "M.E. Buszek" <buszekme@chickmail.com>
Subject: apologies...
To the HistSex listserv members:
Many apologies for the multiple copies of my last post...Apparently, in hitting the "reply all"
key to send the message to everyone on Ms. Santos' "to" list, I somehow managed to hit the
listserv three times. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth!
Many thanks,
Maria-Elena Buszek
___________________________________________________________________From: "ronsin" <Francis.Ronsin@ehess.fr>
Subject: RE: fetish and control
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:36:58 +0100
Cher Francis,
Il s'agit de quoi, cette traduction, s'il vous plait?
Sheila
Chère Sheila,
"Masochisme" est un néologisme créé par Krafft-Ebing à partir du nom de
l'auteur, autrichien, de " La Vénus à la fourrure " (1870) - excusez mon
erreur sur le titre -.
"Je vois que vous êtes vraiment plus qu'un romantique normal, vous ne restez
pas en deçà de vos rêves, vous êtes l'homme que vous vous imaginez,
serait-ce folie que de l'accomplir" (La Vénus à la fourrure).
Le préfacier - Gilles Deleuze - est un philosophe " post-moderne "
français.
Bon courage pour vos études.
Francis Ronsin
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:39:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Stian Westlake <westlak@fas.harvard.edu>
Subject: Eunuch medical technicalities
This is a request for information about the medical history of castration
(with reference to eunuchs).
Does anyone know of any good sources relating to the castration of
eunuchs in pre-modern periods (I am interested in specifics, especially
medical information)?
I am particularly interested in anything Western (by which I mean
anywhere west of India - Byzantium, Central Asia, Venice, Verdun...), but
material from China and India would be welcome too by way of comparison. I
am aware of Taisuke Mitamura's gleefully Sinophobe work on eunuchs, and
have read a few c1900 French/N African medico-moral tracts condemning
castration, but I'd be interested to see, say, a reference to castration
in a Byzantine medical manual or an Arabic account of the castration of
slaves. (Yes, I have read Liutprand's _Antapodosis_ on the subject, and
no, I don't understand it either.)
Thanks for your help - I realise eunuchs are a little off the beaten track
of sexuality...
Regards
Stian
-----------------
Stian Westlake
36 Oxford Street
Cambridge MA 02138
United States
==================
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:54:55 -0500
From: Anne Lyden <ael9@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: equality concerns
Hi,
I am a graduate student at Cornell University studying role of sexualtiy in
representations of female suffering in eighteenth-century plays and novels.
I have been lurking on the list for a while and thought I should identify
myself. I also wanted to point out two things about the Vermont petition.
1 - there has been a lot of feedback and the Vermont governor et. al. do
not want anymore at present.
2 - they are also only interested in the opinions and feelings of
residents of Vermont, and not the rest of the world.
These issues were being discussed on a listserver here at Cornell and this
is the current advice that is being given from those working on the issue
in Vermont.
Anne Lyden
*******************
Anne Lyden
English Department
250 Goldwin Smith
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-3201
(607) 255-6800
******************
___________________________________________________________________
From: kallberg@sas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey Kallberg)
Subject: Re: Eunuch medical technicalities
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:36:20 -0500 (EST)
Stian Westlake wrote:
>
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> This is a request for information about the medical history of castration
> (with reference to eunuchs).
.....
> Thanks for your help - I realise eunuchs are a little off the beaten track
> of sexuality...
Not in music history they aren't! A particularly useful source is Hans
Fritz, _Kastratengesang: Hormonelle, Konstitutionelle und Paedagogische
Aspekte_ (Tutzing: Hans Scheider Verlag, 1994), which surveys medical
approaches to castration from the Greeks, Romans, and Middle Ages into
the age of castrati singers. Many helpful illustrations and graphs.
--
Jeffrey Kallberg
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Music
University of Pennsylvania
201 S. 34th St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6313
215-898-7545 (office)
215-573-2106 (fax)
kallberg@sas.upenn.edu
___________________________________________________________________From: "Shaun Tougher" <TougherSF@Cardiff.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:36:40 GMT0BST
Subject: Re: Eunuch medical technicalities
Dear Stian,
The only Byzantine medical description of castration I know of is
by Paul of Aegina in his <italic>Epitome of Medicine</italic> VI.68. It seems that
Paul was writing in the seventh century. He describes two methods
of castration - compression and excision.
In my experience pre-modern medical descriptions of castration are
extremely rare. I look forward to consulting the work by Hans Fritz.
Shaun Tougher
School of History & Archaeology
Cardiff University
Cardiff CF1 3XU
Wales
UK
Tel: 01222 876228
Fax: 01222 874929
TougherSF@cardiff.ac.uk
___________________________________________________________________Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:13:52 -0500
From: Sheila McManus <smcmanus@YorkU.CA>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Sheila Newman wrote:
>This leads me back to the issue of symbolic content. I am amazed that
>femininity can be reduced >to the symbols of suspenders-in-bed, but
>obviously it can be in a certain kind of relationship and >this ideal of
>femininity seems to be intricately bound up with a highly energized, but
>partial or >fragmentary self concept. Here I am thinking of
>heterosexual relationships since the need for >such symbolism is easier to
>understand in homosexual relationships, but you would think that
>>secondary sexual characteristics in a heterosexual couple would make such
>symbolism >redundant.
I would be curious to hear other opinions on whether or not "such
symbolism" is in fact "easier to understand in homosexual relationships".
My reading of this paragraph (and please correct me if I'm wrong!) is that
it implies that because of the assumed 'sameness' of the bodies/gender
performances of same-sex couples, the members of such couples are more
likely to invest differing "secondary sexual characteristics" with more
symbolic content. I will freely admit that as a lesbian I perceive quite
the opposite: from where I stand I would argue that in fact it is
heterosexuals who are much more heavily invested in (dare I say fetishize?)
their gender performances/secondary sexual characteristics, but it is only
because they are perceived as "normal" (and not merely common ;-D ) and
homos aren't that the performances/characteristics of lesbian and gay
couples are assumed to be more symbolic.
Am I alone on this limb out here?
Sheila McManus
* * * * * * * * * *
Sheila McManus
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, York University
smcmanus@yorku.ca
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:11:49 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Hi,
Reading your comments I think you are right. My assumption obviously has very
shaky foundations! I am obviously not very well attuned to this area.
Thanks
Sheila
Sheila McManus wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 10:25:03 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Hullo Donna,
I apologise for taking so long to reply to your kind offer.
I am currently trying to frame some kind of hypothesis whereby I could propose
this material sociologically, so it may be some time before I get round to more
specific questions.
Cheers,
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 12:48:16 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: erotisme et socialite de fetish and control
[English translation below for those of you who don't understand French. Hope
you don't mind this French but there seems really no adequate reason to confine a
list to one language only]
Cher Francis,
Si je comprends bien la citation,
"Je vois que vous êtes vraiment plus qu'un romantique normal, vous ne restez
pas en deçà de vos rêves, vous êtes l'homme que vous vous imaginez,
serait-ce folie que de l'accomplir" (La Vénus à la fourrure).
Il me semble que vous soulevez une question de l'etat de sante mentale chez les
BSDM?
A mon avis il n'en est pas question de folie (a l'exception des cas tres rares
dont la folie serait coincidentale). Non, quand je demandais des precisions sur
l'aspet du 'control' - si c'etait social ou anti-social; schizoid ou affectif -
je me demandais si cela etait surtout un produit des fantaisies de l'acteur ou
simplement une elaboration des relations affectives; c'est a dire, est-ce que
l'on le faisait pour soi ou est-ce que c'etait une facon de reagir avec l'autre.
Si cela n'etait qu'une elaboration des relations affectives alors je suppose
qu'il serait possible de la varier selon la reaction de l'autre, mais s'il s'agit
surtout de satisfaire les fantaisies de l'acteur alors il ne serait peut-etre pas
possible pour son amant d'influer cette conduite.
Je vous donne un exemple de la situation a laquelle je pensais:
Si l'on imagine qu'il y a deux situations BDSM dont l'homme (A) voudra controler
les habits de la femme (B) 70% du temps qu'ils passent ensemble, jour et nuit,
mais que la femme voudra conformer seulement a l'interieur et seulement 50% du
temps passe a l'interieur et porter des vetements ordinaires, ou simplement etre
nue le reste du temps, le resultat pourrait etre different selon les variations
suivantes.
Si A est motive surtout par des fantaisies erotiques a vouloir controller B,
alors il sera difficile, sinon impossible pour le couple de s'entendre si B
refuse de porter porte-jarrettelles et aller sans culottes dans la rue.
Si A est motive surtout par son desir d'avoir des relations affectives avec B,
alors il me semble tres possible que le couple pourra arriver a un compromis. Ce
compromis pourrait se resoudre simplement en l'apportionnement du pourcentage du
temps consacre au control (de vetements) de B par A ou il pourrait se resoudre
peut-etre moins rigidement en l'exploration d'autres expressions sociales non
sexuels, par exemple des ballades a la campagne ou une etude entreprise ensemble.
J'imagine aussi un autre probleme, qui serait plus difficile a resoudre, ou
l'acculturation de B pose un obstacle:
voila:
A propose un compromis ou B conformera a ses besoins vestimentaires 40% du temps,
mais insiste que 20% de ce temps sera passe a l'exterieur. B est d'accord pour
les 40% du temps, mais absolument pas d'accord pour aller sans culottes et porter
ces bas noirs a l'exterieur. Pour elle la sexualite est une affaire intime et
privee et elle n'entend pas la confondre avec sa vie publique. Quand elle se
promene dans la rue ses roles sexuels sont tres minimises dans son imagination,
meme si elle est accompagne par A.
Mais puisque la conception erotique du role de la femelle chez A oblige la
conformite vestimentaire dans la rue 20% du temps, il insiste. Impasse? ou
existe-t-il une resolution?
Sheila
PS. Ne serait-ce pas vous que j'ai rencontre dans une reunion eco-malthusienne
donne par le Prof Homard dans son apparetment dans les Gobelins en 1998? Vous
etes grand, comme je me souviens, avec des cheveux blancs et vous portiez une
canne avec une tete de canard en bois
.
Je vais maintenant traduire cette lettre en Anglais pour ce qui ne comprennent
pas le Francais.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
Francis Ronsin wrote that "masochism is a neologism created by Krafft-Ebing from
the name of the author of the ?Venus In Fur (1870) by Sacher-Masoch, which he
cites:
"I see that you are more than a normal romantic, you do not remain bound by the
limits of your dreams, you are the man of your imagination, even though to act on
this would be madness."
[Others may be able to translate the above much better than I]
He adds that the preface to the publication is by Gilles Deleuze, a "post modern"
philosopher.
My reply to Ronsin is as follows:
[Please excuse my assumption of male/female relationship; that is how I am
thinking at the moment]
It seems to me that you are raising the question of mental health among BDSMs?
In my opinion "madness" is not a factor (except in rare cases where insanity
might be coincidental).
No, when I asked for precisions on an aspect of 'control' - whether it was social
or anti-social; schizoid or affective - I was wondering whether it was mainly a
product of the actor's fantasies or simply an elaboration of an affective
(loving) relationship; that is, was it done for the individual himself or was it
a way of interacting with the partner? If it was only an elaboration of an
affective relationship then I suppose it would be possible to vary the behaviour
according to the reaction of the other, but if it was mainly concerned with
satisfying the actor's fantasies, then it might not be possible for his lover to
influence this behaviour.
Here is an illustrative example:
If you imagine two BDSM situations where the man (A) wants to control what the
woman (B) wears 70% of the time they spend together, day and night, but the woman
only wants to conform inside the house and only 50% of the time they spend in the
house and to wear ordinary clothes or be naked the rest of the time, the result
could be different according to the following variations.
If A is above all motivated by erotic fantasies to exercise control over B, then
it will be difficult, perhaps even impossible, for the couple to continue to get
along if B refuses to wear suspender belts and to go without underpants in the
street.
If A is motivated above all by his desire to have a loving relationship with B,
then it seems to be quite possible that the couple would be able to reach a
compromise. This compromise could resolve simply in reworking the percentage of
time given over to A controlling B's attire or it could be resolved less rigidly
perhaps through exploration of social rather than sexual expressions of the
relationship, for instance walks in the country or the undertaking of some form
of study together.
I can imagine another problem, which would be more difficult to solve, where B's
cultural values present an obstacle, such as:
A proposes a compromoise where B would conform to his requirements for her
dressing 40% of the time, but insists that 20% of this time will be passed
outside the house. B is okay for the apportionment of 40% of time, but
absolutely against wearing black stockings and no underpants in the street. For
her sexuality is an intimate and private thing and she has no desire to blur the
boudaries between public and private life. When she walks in the street her
sexual role is minimal in her imagination, even if she is in the presence of A.
But since A's erotic conception of the female role requires clothing obedience in
the street 20% of the time, he insists on this aspect. Is there a way out of
this or is it an impasse?
Does anyone have an opinion on this?
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Donna Larsen" <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:20:08 PST
No Problem, I hope my information was helpful.
___________________________________________________________________From: "naughtygirl _669" <naughtygirl_669@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Eunuch medical technicalities
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:54:26 GMT
I am interested in any information on Egyptian history such as astrology or
medicine and harems.Please send me any info you can!!!Thanks.
___________________________________________________________________From: JNKATZ1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:20:57 EST
Subject: Police & FBI Surveillance of GLBTQ groups?
Does anyone know of persons or groups who have collected Freedom of
Information Act request materials on local police or federal FBI surveillance
of glbtq groups in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s, and are willing to share the
research?
Thanks, Jonathan Ned Katz
jnkatz1@aol.com
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:16:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Lisa Diguardi <diguardi@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Police & FBI Surveillance of GLBTQ groups?
The only FOIA documents I have gotten have been from
the FBI's website, which you probably have already
found. They had a Gay Activist Alliance file there, as
well as a few individual famous gay and lesbian
people.
I plan to look into getting more over the summer.
-Lisa
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:57:08 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Quite frankly, I don't follow you.
>Okay to clarify Chris, thanks.
>The specific kind of fetish I am thinking of studying does require the other
>person to cooperate, not like accidental bra strap glimpsing. But it requires
>the person to co-operate almost all the time, night and day, otherwise the
>fetishist would withdraw their affection. Presumably their affection is
>important. There is definitely a strong element of domination and
>control and no
>doubt, psychological violence.
It sounds like you're describing _The Story of O_ above.
I'm under the impression you're sorting out ideas, but I found your
assumptions troubling at worst, puzzling at best.
Are you doing a sociological study? Have you examples of such
subjects above? Why not ask them?
Or are you doing a study of such fetishism as manifested in popular
culture, "art," "erotica," "pornography"?
>It is not just a role the lovers slip in and out
>of. So it is a fetish with a strong control feature. It is always
>there but the
>couple may have quite a full life around it or despite it.
Again, have you examples of such couples? In what context?
>
>Is it not possible to conceive of a situation where the controlling
>fetishist was
>in a situation of mutual attraction but unfortunately the object of his desire
>was not interested in the fetish and only allowed it in order to
>retain affection
>or to avoid strong disapproval?
Of course, but then she should get a life :)
>
>Sorry if I sound naive. I have encountered two severe cases like
>this (outside
>Islam) in patients with apparently unrelated problems, one further
>case involving
>an Islamic husband (so it sort of fitted into the culture of
>control), and I have
>heard anecdotal stories from a couple of wives who say their
>husbands would like
>them to constantly dress in black stockings, suspender belts and no
>underpants.
Gee, I had no idea there was such a rich fantasy life in the town in
which you live :)
>Apparently they do this from time to time, but not a lot of the time, so the
>domination is quite attenuated. So I have tentatively concluded that the
>practice may be quite widespread.
I don't follow your conclusion. Apparently they do this from time to
time, because it's fun to do it from time to time/impractical to do
it "regularly." And indeed is it "domination"? or "play"? Can't
one allow oneself to be "dominated"? As such, is this "domination"?
>
>Lesley had something to say about unusually highly sexed persons having
>fetishes. It seems to me that this could be a factor, at least in the cases
>where there is a requirement that the female constantly wear the prescribed
>costume.
>
>The similarities persist in social explanations given for imposing certain
>costumes on women in some Islamic societies where the women
>basically have little
>choice but the male classes that impose this clothing and control (purdah) on
>them say that the society does it out of love or for the women's protection.
And, of course, the women "allow" them to do so/collude in the
practice, as you note below.
>Some women resist, some collude. Resistance is discouraged by
>punishment of one
>kind or another.
Maybe the resistors WANT to be punished?
>
>What do you think?
See above.
___________________________________________________________________Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:59:39 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Seek information on fetish
>I 'll send you the full text of the article. Incidentally, _I_ didn't say
>anything about fetishists being highly sexed - this was a brief
>summarisation of Krafft-Ebing's theories. To cite someone's ideas in an
>historical overview of a subject is not to concur with or endorse those
>ideas. My feeling from reading more recent authorities on the subject would
>be that they tend to make an opposite interpretation, that fetishism is to
>some extent a defence against impotence-fears.
Isn't that (a version of) the classical Freudian view?
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:05:34 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
>Just to remind anyone reading this, I am seeking the sociological
>origin of the content of these control fetishes/lifestyles
>(specifically:
>persuading female partners not to wear underpants inside and outside
>the home but to wear suspender belts and black stockings at all
>times, including whilst sleeping. I am also seeking opinions on
>the frequency of the social occurrence of them, the sociological or
>other origin of them, and explanatory literature about them.
I continue to fail to understand why you have fixated, indeed
"fetishized", your assumptions on a sociological origin. It seems to
me to be very closed, not allowing the research to take you where IT
goes, and imposing YOUR predetermined schema on the data.
>
>Also, when you talk of lifestyle fetishists as being a bit "sniffy"
>about amateurs, this implies that the lifestylers get together and
>discuss this kind of thing. I would have thought, however, that
>dyads like this would tend to be quite insular (except maybe
>homosexual ones - I had rather hoped to keep this to male female, so
>as to preserve the sociological possibility of translating this into
>cultural practices) - however.
Why does keeping this to heterosexual couples "preserve the
sociological possibility of translating this into cultural
practices"? Don't homosexuals participate in "cultural practices"?
___________________________________________________________________
From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 04:36:14 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Bob wrote:
And indeed is it "domination"? or "play"? Can't
one allow oneself to be "dominated"? As such, is this "domination"?
Defining the authenticity or quality of the domination is one of the
trickiest things in relation to power-play based fetishes, I think, because
the 'victim', the 'powerless' one has, in safe-sane-consensual play, the
ability to stop the domination at any moment. But the domination isn't fake
either, because the form the domination takes is experienced as real by both
parties. It is perfectly possible to consent to domination (physical, mental)
either within submissive-defined parameters, or up to the point where the
submissive says No more (people play the game differently). But I'd be
interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about the 'reality' of the
domination in such a fetish-based sexual encounter.
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:44:57 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Bob wrote:
> Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
> Quite frankly, I don't follow you.
>
> >Okay to clarify Chris, thanks.
> >The specific kind of fetish I am thinking of studying does require the other
> >person to cooperate, not like accidental bra strap glimpsing. But it requires
> >the person to co-operate almost all the time, night and day, otherwise the
> >fetishist would withdraw their affection. Presumably their affection is
> >important. There is definitely a strong element of domination and
> >control and no
> >doubt, psychological violence.
>
> It sounds like you're describing _The Story of O_ above.
>
> I'm under the impression you're sorting out ideas, but I found your
> assumptions troubling at worst, puzzling at best.
>
> Are you doing a sociological study? Have you examples of such
> subjects above? Why not ask them?
I was doing preliminary enquiries to find out what writing and studies may have
been done already. My aim was to see whether this would be a viable area for post
grad sociological research. I departed from a background of psyche nursing and
sociology and had this idea that I wanted to explore. You are asking questions
about an exchange of idea I had with Chris White (I think) - so you sort of came in
in the middle. My assumptions were really questions; I was seeking clarification.
sorry if they troubled you.
>
>
> Or are you doing a study of such fetishism as manifested in popular
> culture, "art," "erotica," "pornography"?
>
> >It is not just a role the lovers slip in and out
> >of. So it is a fetish with a strong control feature. It is always
> >there but the
> >couple may have quite a full life around it or despite it.
>
> Again, have you examples of such couples? In what context?
Anecdotal plus two patients and I wondered about islamic culture and women's dress
etc.
>
>
> >
> >Is it not possible to conceive of a situation where the controlling
> >fetishist was
> >in a situation of mutual attraction but unfortunately the object of his desire
> >was not interested in the fetish and only allowed it in order to
> >retain affection
> >or to avoid strong disapproval?
>
> Of course, but then she should get a life :)
I was trying to understand the situation, not to judge it.
>
>
> >
> >Sorry if I sound naive. I have encountered two severe cases like
> >this (outside
> >Islam) in patients with apparently unrelated problems, one further
> >case involving
> >an Islamic husband (so it sort of fitted into the culture of
> >control), and I have
> >heard anecdotal stories from a couple of wives who say their
> >husbands would like
> >them to constantly dress in black stockings, suspender belts and no
> >underpants.
>
> Gee, I had no idea there was such a rich fantasy life in the town in
> which you live :)
>
> >Apparently they do this from time to time, but not a lot of the time, so the
> >domination is quite attenuated. So I have tentatively concluded that the
> >practice may be quite widespread.
>
> I don't follow your conclusion. Apparently they do this from time to
> time, because it's fun to do it from time to time/impractical to do
> it "regularly." And indeed is it "domination"? or "play"? Can't
> one allow oneself to be "dominated"? As such, is this "domination"?
>
Once again, I'm not judging, just trying to understand.
>
> >
> >Lesley had something to say about unusually highly sexed persons having
> >fetishes. It seems to me that this could be a factor, at least in the cases
> >where there is a requirement that the female constantly wear the prescribed
> >costume.
> >
> >The similarities persist in social explanations given for imposing certain
> >costumes on women in some Islamic societies where the women
> >basically have little
> >choice but the male classes that impose this clothing and control (purdah) on
> >them say that the society does it out of love or for the women's protection.
>
> And, of course, the women "allow" them to do so/collude in the
> practice, as you note below.
>
> >Some women resist, some collude. Resistance is discouraged by
> >punishment of one
> >kind or another.
>
> Maybe the resistors WANT to be punished?
In the societies I was thinking about it's the law and women generally don't have
equal rights at law in these societies and they are also raised in this culture
from an early age, so would not have much chance to criticize it.
>
>
> >
> >What do you think?
I think that I probably won't be going ahead with this as a subject of study,
although I have found discussions on this site enormously interesting and helpful.
cheers,
Sheila
>
>
> See above.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:44:28 +1100
From: Sheila Newman <smnaesp@alphalink.com.au>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Bob wrote:
> Just to remind anyone reading this, I am seeking the sociological origin of the content of these control fetishes/lifestyles (specifically:
> persuading female partners not to wear underpants inside and outside the home but to wear suspender belts and black stockings at all times, including whilst sleeping. I am also seeking opinions on the frequency of the social occurrence of them, the sociological or other origin of them, and explanatory literature about them.
>
> I continue to fail to understand why you have fixated, indeed "fetishized", your assumptions on
a sociological origin. It seems to me to be very closed, not allowing the research to take you
where IT goes, and imposing YOUR predetermined schema on the data.
The reason is that I am doing post graduate research in sociology and they don't let you wander
from the discipline. Otherwise I would.
>
>
> Also, when you talk of lifestyle fetishists as being a bit "sniffy" about amateurs, this implies that the lifestylers get together and discuss this kind of thing. I would have thought, however, that dyads like this would tend to be quite insular (except maybe homosexual ones - I had rather hoped to keep this to male female, so as to preserve the sociological possibility of translating this into cultural practices) - however.
>
> Why does keeping this to heterosexual couples "preserve the sociological possibility of
translating this into cultural practices"? Don't homosexuals participate in "cultural practices"?
Sorry to have irritated you. I wrote earlier that I had hoped to make comparisons with islamic cultures where women were obliged to wear specific kinds of clothes and adhere to rigorous social rules, and the homosexual dyads didn't seem to fit easily into a cultural study like that. I was trying to keep things simple.
Cheers,
Sheila
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 05:54:58 -0600
From: Dar Weyenberg <dweyenbe@students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Greetings all:
I have been following this thread and noticed that the concept of "highly
sexed" individuals/persons has been tossed around by many.
For those who have used this concept, I would appreciate it if you could
define how you define this concept? And how would you/anyone distinguish
this from "normally" sexed individuals. How did this concept come about?
Thanks in advance
dar
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall"<lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 12:41:54 gmt
Subject: Re: fetish and control
>Greetings all:
>I have been following this thread and noticed that the concept of "highly
>sexed" individuals/persons has been tossed around by many.
>For those who have used this concept, I would appreciate it if you could
>define how you define this concept? And how would you/anyone distinguish
>this from "normally" sexed individuals. How did this concept come about?
As I pointed out before, I was not tossing this phrase about myself: I was citing
Krafft-Ebing. K-E tended to blame excessive sexual desire for a whole range
of paraphilias - which to my mind very much reflects pervasive C19th assumptions
about sexuality and the need for its control and the problems arising when it
could not be controlled.
On the concept of highly-sexed per se, if a premature ejaculator is defined
as a man who comes faster than his psychiatrist, 'highly sexed' probably means
an individual who appears to want/need/do sex more than whoever is the commentator
on this behaviour. It's not really a concept which I have found turning up in
medico-scientific works to any great extent. Some marriage manuals did address
the problem of one spouse (usually, but not necessarily the husband) being 'more
highly sexed' than the other - but that is a relative rather than an absolute
standard.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
homepage: http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:06:15 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
>
>Bob wrote:
>
>And indeed is it "domination"? or "play"? Can't
> one allow oneself to be "dominated"? As such, is this "domination"?
And Chris replied:
>Defining the authenticity or quality of the domination is one of the
>trickiest things in relation to power-play based fetishes, I think, because
>the 'victim', the 'powerless' one has, in safe-sane-consensual play, the
>ability to stop the domination at any moment. But the domination isn't fake
>either, because the form the domination takes is experienced as real by both
>parties.
To which Bob responded:
I remain unconvinced as to the necessarily "real" quality of the
domination "play." Granted it may be "real"; but equally it may be
the enacting of the fantasy; and equally it may remain consciously,
at the back of the player's mind, as "play." The potential for
danger occurs when the "play" crosses over into the "real" (in other
words, the scene gets out of hand/control)
>It is perfectly possible to consent to domination (physical, mental)
>either within submissive-defined parameters, or up to the point where the
>submissive says No more (people play the game differently). But I'd be
>interested in hearing what anyone else thinks about the 'reality' of the
>domination in such a fetish-based sexual encounter.
See above :)
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:20:01 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
> > Why does keeping this to heterosexual couples "preserve the
>sociological possibility of translating this into cultural
>practices"? Don't homosexuals participate in "cultural practices"?
>
>Sorry to have irritated you. I wrote earlier that I had hoped to
>make comparisons with islamic cultures where women were obliged to
>wear specific kinds of clothes and adhere to rigorous social rules,
>and the homosexual dyads didn't seem to fit easily into a cultural
>study like that. I was trying to keep things simple.
Again, I find the fetishized sex practices of what I presume are
middle-class Anglo-Americans to bear little if any comparison with
the sociological and cultural constraints of Islamic civilization.
Your previous emails allude to Islamic culture(s), but they also seem
to describe the sex practices of an increasingly bored bourgeoisie.
Indeed, as you may be implying, not all Islamic culture_s_ practice
purdah. Indeed, it may be interesting to compare specific practices,
but then again, they're apples & oranges -- and I find the potential
point of comparison unconvincing at best and artificially imposed.
And your inference that I am "irritated" is incorrect.
Bemused/disappointed is perhaps more accurate.
Best,
Bob
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:26:21 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
> > Are you doing a sociological study? Have you examples of such
> > subjects above? Why not ask them?
>
>I was doing preliminary enquiries to find out what writing and
>studies may have
>been done already. My aim was to see whether this would be a viable
>area for post
>grad sociological research. I departed from a background of psyche
>nursing and
>sociology and had this idea that I wanted to explore. You are
>asking questions
>about an exchange of idea I had with Chris White (I think) - so you
>sort of came in
>in the middle.
No. I am asking questions in response to your original query.
Regrettably I was away from my computer for a few days. Sorry if my
coming in in the middle has muddied the exchange.
>My assumptions were really questions; I was seeking clarification.
>sorry if they troubled you.
See my previous email with regard to the above.
>
> > >Is it not possible to conceive of a situation where the controlling
> > >fetishist was
> > >in a situation of mutual attraction but unfortunately the object
>of his desire
> > >was not interested in the fetish and only allowed it in order to
> > >retain affection
> > >or to avoid strong disapproval?
> >
> > Of course, but then she should get a life :)
>
>I was trying to understand the situation, not to judge it.
As am I my dear. Please note the use of the emoticon.
>
> > >Apparently they do this from time to time, but not a lot of the
>time, so the
> > >domination is quite attenuated. So I have tentatively concluded that the
> > >practice may be quite widespread.
> >
> > I don't follow your conclusion. Apparently they do this from time to
> > time, because it's fun to do it from time to time/impractical to do
> > it "regularly." And indeed is it "domination"? or "play"? Can't
> > one allow oneself to be "dominated"? As such, is this "domination"?
> >
>
>Once again, I'm not judging, just trying to understand.
While I have not "judged," I infer from what & how you wrote that you
indeed have.
>
> > >Some women resist, some collude. Resistance is discouraged by
> > >punishment of one
> > >kind or another.
> >
> > Maybe the resistors WANT to be punished?
>
>In the societies I was thinking about it's the law and women
>generally don't have
>equal rights at law in these societies and they are also raised in
>this culture
>from an early age, so would not have much chance to criticize it.
I infer from what you wrote above that you are referring to some
generalized notion of Islamic cultures in which purdah is practiced.
I would only point you to the experiences of the Islamic Revolution
in Iran as a rebuttal.
Best,
Bob
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 10:39:21 -0500
From: Sheila McManus <smcmanus@yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Bob wrote:
>As am I my dear.
Surely on a list comprised of adults, equals, and strangers such
patronizing and over-familiar language could be dispensed with?
Sheila
* * * * * * * * * *
Sheila McManus
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, York University
smcmanus@yorku.ca
___________________________________________________________________From: "Donna Larsen" <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 09:31:01 PST
I believe the reality to be this. A Dominant who abuses his or her power
will eventually run out of people who will trust them enough to submit to
them, and when that happens that person will no longer be able to dominate
because you cannot do it unless you have a submissive.
A respected, responsible dominant finds submissives who adore him or her,
and then the domination becomes much more real. I find that while my
submissives have real negotiation power, and veto power if something is not
working for them, I am definatly in control in my relationship with them.
They love, and respect me so they want or rather have a need to please me.
Now if I abuse that trust I have no doubt that the need will go away real
fast. So I would say it depends on the relationship how real the domination
is.
___________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:15:11 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Hmmm. Not sure that adoration brings the capacity to be controlled so simply.
Many scenes are played out by people who are effectively strangers (as in a
club environment), and the success of domination and control there does not
depend upon the degree of emotional connection between people, but on the
skill of the dominant and the extent or depth of the submission. They are
evidently different from one-on-one long-term relationships where 'adoration'
may be a component of the dynamic (or not) (very unhappy with that word
'adoration', too many religious connotations...) but even then not
necessarily. Perhaps a condition of thralldom (bordering on a pun there), of
being deeply engaged with the dominant and of a moment-by-moment
responsiveness to them (rather than a fixed hierarchical structure they both
inhabit) better articulates the connection. And one can be in thrall to an
image or metaphoric projection which the 'real' person does not fulfill.
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 13:35:28 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Of course it could ... my dear ... assuming for the sake of argument
that the list indeed is comprised of "adults, equal, and strangers."
>Bob wrote:
>
> >As am I my dear.
>
>Surely on a list comprised of adults, equals, and strangers such
>patronizing and over-familiar language could be dispensed with?
>
>Sheila
>
>
>* * * * * * * * * *
>Sheila McManus
>Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, York University
>smcmanus@yorku.ca
___________________________________________________________________From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 20:00:05 -0000
I would really find it extremely tiresome to put the list back on moderation
given that there have been some days of quite heavy posting to the list, so
please could participants observe some standards of civility even while
expressing disagreement? Calling anyone 'my dear' in this context comes
over, whatever the intention, as belittling.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
website http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
___________________________________________________________________Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:00:35 -0600
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
As does suggesting that someone has belatedly butted into a publicly
posted conversation between two private individuals, from which I
inferred that I didn't really "get" it and wasn't really welcome.
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>I would really find it extremely tiresome to put the list back on moderation
>given that there have been some days of quite heavy posting to the list, so
>please could participants observe some standards of civility even while
>expressing disagreement? Calling anyone 'my dear' in this context comes
>over, whatever the intention, as belittling.
>Lesley Hall
___________________________________________________________________From: "Donna Larsen" <ladydonna85@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 21:34:22 PST
Here in Seattle where it is a fairly small scene though, a lot of times the
trust between people who do not know each other still comes from each others
references, particularly the dominants, all though I a submissive with a bad
reputation will also have a problem finding doms.
So you see respect and control still needs to be earned.
___________________________________________________________________From: Kazetnik@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:50:31 EST
Subject: Re: fetish and control
Bob wrote:
<As does suggesting that someone has belatedly butted into a publicly
posted conversation between two private individuals, from which I
inferred that I didn't really "get" it and wasn't really welcome.>
As one of the individuals involved in the conversation, I certainly was
pleased for anyone to 'butt in'. It's called academic debate. But doing the
'parfait gentil knight' routine, while it may be wryly amusing when there are
facial expressions and tone to contextualize it, is asking for trouble -- and
not in a pleasingly fetishistic manner either.
Chris
___________________________________________________________________From: "dave lewis" <daveyll@hotmail.com>
Subject: sexual health
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:03:36 PST