I had so many other things i planned to write about. Much more enjoyable things. Juicy. Tawdry. The kind of things that perhaps are the sole reasons most of you come to visit. But no. Instead, i had to read this article.
Anthrax. Whoa. Dangerous stuff, sure. But why exactly is it being mentioned on these pages? When i first read the article several days ago, it brought back many memories of 2001. Of that time, living in my city that had been attacked by terrorists. How we were just starting to adjust to the new landscape, how we were just starting the work we needed to do in order to heal and then - POW - those letters delivering their vicious white powder landed at several Broadcasting HQ's here in Midtown and at the doors of several U.S. Senators down in Washington D.C. More panic and terror set in. We didn't know how much we would need to recoil and fortify against the evils out there. It was genuinely a very scary, completely unsexy time. But it's not those memories that push me to write on this article. No. The reason came further down the page, when i came across the "profile" the journalist decided to fabricate of the alleged anthrax mailer:
They discovered his penchant for taking long drives at night, sometimes mailing letters and packages from distant spots under assumed names. They discovered his obsession with a sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and with images of blindfolded women, hundreds of which were found on his computer, the report says.
I can understand the relevance of mentioning his penchant for taking long drives at night wherein he would drop something in a postal box several miles away. It establishes a pattern of behavior that can explain his ability to send those anthrax-laden envelopes from Princeton, NJ. I can even vaguely get why they divulge his obsession with a sorority (although they do not say which campus - i can't imagine he was just obsessed with this particular sorority, nationwide, but i digress). What i cannot understand for the life of me is why this journalist saw fit reasons to mention his "obsession" with images of blindfolded women. WHAT RELEVANCE IS THAT????!!??
I was so incredibly perturbed when i came across that part of the article. Of course they had to find some S&M aspect to fully complete the psychotic character that would commit such heinous acts. I closed the article. Forgot about it as best i could, and went on with my day.
But this bullshit statement wouldn't let me rest. It kept popping up in my head. Shoving its way into my eye, poking me. Causing me to grow increasingly irritated. I even tried my traditional methods of relieving anxiety and frustration: Run Like Hell. The weather has been gorgeous, so i took to the park and ran until my sides screamed. And yet, it didn't seem to do the job because i could still feel anger for this journalists irresponsible words in between my gasps for air. This wasn't just some pandering tabloid, looking to jolt its pages with some scandal. No, this was the New York Times, the supposed standard of journalistic excellence.
Why is it that whenever a beat reporter is looking to fill out his column, he sinks into the muck and chooses to capitalize on the alleged's collection of S&M porn? Why in articles about great men who have accomplished heroic deeds, we do not hear that they too had a vast collection of images of blindfolded women.
"In addition to raising millions of dollars for relief efforts in Haiti, George Clooney likes to relax and let off steam by picking through his sizable anthology of women gagged by rope."
I can quite easily say that i have way more than hundreds of images of material that, should a journalist with half a brain find them, could paint me as the Most Dangerous Man Alive. It's articles like this that remind me that it's not safe to express who i am in a public forum. That it's not safe to attach myself to these acts i depict on this site, despite the fact that every one of them are of a consensual manner. This is why i must be anonymous, despite my efforts to present SM as a responsible and loving expression of intimacy and vulnerability.
And to be honest, there are days i don't think it's worth it.
7 comments:
Deity, Sir
I can completely empathize with your feelings regarding not wanting to expose yourself due to the judgmental pointing fingers of those who are ignorant. However, I believe it is because of such "journalistic" statements found in the article you shared, that we should express ourselves, expose ourselves in order to help shed the misconceptions of such predilections.
I know many would disagree, some might even scoff at my sentiments; however, I believe that exposing my desires, shedding untruths about what I like, what I want, what makes me happy is no different than when women took a stand and fought for their rights to vote or when people stood up and fought for their rights to express their sexuality; to say it is okay to love someone of the same gender.
I realise that when it comes to privacy I am definitely one of those people who values and respects mine as well as everyone else. With that said though I would be the first person to fight for my rights to be who I am, to like what I like and I would go to the supreme court to ensure I was not discriminated against. I have been to court, I have been to parliament numerous times and I have in my short 36 years of life brought three new bills to Canadian government and I would do it again to help people not be discriminated against simply due to their like of rope or their like of blindfolds or their like of spankings or whatever else they might like.
I have said many times how frustrated I am whenever a movie depicts anything of a kinky nature to that of a deviant, life threatening murderous beast. What I do, how I approach my life and my sexuality has nothing to do with harming another or myself; it has nothing to do with taking a life; it has nothing to do with taking without consent and when I read the article you shared or watch those movies or listen to people in the street judging those who enjoy something a little "different" it causes my blood to boil and the little activist in me to march in protest.
Like you Deity, Sir, the fact that images of women in blindfolds were added to the article made my innards scream and all I could think of was why? Why include that fact, it has no place, no meaning with the rest of the case.
I think that in order for society to change people who have "kinky" desires must speak with confidence, must stand up to "The Man"and must help change how the world views "us".
A very long time ago I heard something that has stayed with me and has helped me to remind myself just how powerful I am.
"If you think you are too small to make a difference, you have never gone to bed with a mosquito."
~a
If you read the full report, which the Times article links to, you can see precisely the relevance of Ivins' interest in blindfolded women. (See p. 53 of the report, here, in footnote 33: http://documents.nytimes.com/amerithrax-investigation-report#p=1)
However, I completely agree with you that if you were going to summarize the report, that detail is one of the least important ones you should touch on. The sorority thing was directly relevant because some of the letters were mailed from outside the sorority house that the guy had been fixated on since the 1970s. He'd broken into the sorority in the 70s, and the fact that the person who sent the letters also had some sort of tie to the sorority helps establish that Ivins was indeed responsible.
But the blindfold thing was a really minor detail, as far as I can tell. You should write the Times!
I’m afraid I don’t agree with goodgirl.
BDSM is expanding in practice because of the Internet and exposure in the media, yet it still much like homosexuality was in the 60’s and 70’s; misunderstood, taboo, and an easy target. The media is laden with examples of foolish men caught with their lingerie on or horrific murderers with a penchant for sadism. Though movies like Secretary might sway a few, mass public opinion will fear, laugh at, and look askance at BDSM and those who practice it for a long, long, time.
If you have a lifestyle or business where exposure means little, by all means wear your kink colors proud, otherwise going public not only can hurt you in business and easily alienate vanilla friends, you could lose all rights to your kids if ever you are divorced. No court will take the side of a known “pervert.”
Bravery and righteousness for the cause is one thing, losing your job or visitation rights to your children is another.
As to the story: all papers, even the NY Times will grab on to a sex angle if it’s juicy, and BDSM is very, very juicy.
I feel ya’ brother, but unlike homosexuality, I don’t think this is going to change within the next 50 years. I think BDSM will be closeted for a long, long time. Yet still, if asked I’m fairly upfront about it. I just don’t go into details and fudge round many specifics.
I got no problem being kinky or even admitting it to some people, but I don’t bring it to work or wear it on my sleeve and for good reason:
I got kids and a job I love.
I don’t want to lose either….
Deity, Sir
If I may please respond to Missy n'B:
I believe that you are correct in saying that society will take a very long time before the vast majority will accept the world of kink. There are still places where women are not treated as equals and I know of many men and women in North America who still believe women should not have the vote.
I also am aware that many people do not agree with same sex relationships and that specific battle is still infused with anger, hate, judgment and unfair biases.
I also believe that should anyone not wish to jeopardize his or her job or ability to see his/her children than yes, by all means do not come rushing out of the closet wearing black latex and sporting a flogger to work or to court for the custody hearing.
All I meant by my expression is that if no one makes a stand, if people do not start to show, to demonstrate a positive and healthy attitude then society will never change, not even think to change, to accept differences.
If Rosa Parks had never said no to the bus driver, had she moved from her seat to allow a "white" person her spot, who knows how long it would have taken for such an injustice to change?
Discrimination is never okay. Ignorance only breeds hate and judgment and if no one speaks up, no change will ever occur.
I appreciate and respect all people's views and I understand that not everyone is in a place to come forward. That does not mean no one should though.
Thank you Deity for allowing me to respond. I wish you all the best Missy n'B.
~a
An quasi-interesting fact?
Kappa Kappa Gamma is sometimes known by its nickname:
"Visa Visa Mastercard"
I completely understand your need to remain anonymous.
Sadly, The most effective way to destroy a persons character and credibility is to use sex(their own) as a weapon against them.
It doesn't matter your individual inclinations, if you are in the public eye and you have sex in an improper location, and with someone you are not supposed to, in a manner the 13th century Catholic church would deam unaceptable, and then word gets out you are going to have trouble.
Some things do not change all that much over the years no matter how outwardly hedonist and accepting society appears. If it has anything to do with sex, it is automatically taboo.
Redd
Clearly we agree the inclusion of the bit about women blindfolded was unnecessary. It didn't advance the cause against this man, nor did it make the piece any more scathing or laser-focused.
What we do not agree with is the methods that are necessary to gain acceptance by society for those of us who engage in SM.
I think the idea that responsible kinky individuals stepping forward proclaiming their worth sounds wonderful. I think an entire chain of reputable and respected public citizens who are also SM practitioners would be a marvelous thing. I think standing our ground, refusing to bend to pressure, and demonstrating to society that we are caring, normal folk is the right thing to do.
But unfortunately, i don't believe it will matter.
The difference between the battles for interracial relationships, and also the ones raging on now for same-sex couples versus those of an SM variety is, i believe, the existence of violence and coercion in the latter. The former relationships only offended dated moral codes (racial on the one hand, and social on the other). Violence is something that is hard-coded in our fabric as something that mustn't be good.
We can claim until we are yellow, red, and orange in the face that we really truly mean well when we swat our completely consenting partner's ass until it is burning and blaring. They won't care. They won't understand it, and the reason for this is very simple: because you yourself (me included) once felt just like them. We all looked upon this as wrong and fucked up and psychologically disturbed.
This won't change for a very long time - if ever. Perhaps, those of us who are the responsible, up-standing practitioners of SM need to spend more time accepting that than trying to change something we can't.
Post a Comment