Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: S&M (Was Re: pornography)
Message-ID: <660884188@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 17:46:48 GMT
References: G> <93782@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <49937@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Organization: The Piranha Club
Lines: 40
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In article <49937@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> (Elissa Feit) writes:
>In article <93782@aerospace.AERO.ORG> (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>>I'm sorry to disappoint you but
>>S&M is a standard equipment on some models.  Period.

>By "standard" do you mean inherent, inborn, etc. ?

What difference does it make?

>Hillel, how do you KNOW that S&M is "standard"?

Because I talked with several S&M people, including those who
tried psychological treatments (that did not "cure" them...)

>And please offer
>something substantial so we don't get into the argument where you say
>"person X is into S&M but was never exposed to ANY hurts/ abuses as a
>child" and *I* respond "Yes, but how do you KNOW that person X hasn't
>forgotten, since many people forget deep traumas?"  etc...

What difference does it make when and why the equipment became standard?

>Since you might ask ME the same question, I suppose *I* think that
>there are no human universals as far as being frozen into rigid
>behavior patterns.

People with this idea have tried to "cure" homosexual for a *long* time.
(You know about Turing, don't you?)

Why can't y'all *respect* people who say "this is a standard
equipment in me, it can't be changed"?

>Elissa Feit (feit@cs.buffalo.edu // {rutgers,uunet}!cs.buffalo.edu!feit)

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"HERE WE ARE, AND HERE WE REMAIN.  WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE,
NOT FOR YOU, OR ANY OTHER.  IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GO TO HELL."
                                --  Clay Bond