From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #475 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, December 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 475 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist [amadain <] Storefront "Best of Month" in SR [steve ] Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist [The Great] Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist [Danielle ] Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist [Aaron Man] Re: Who Hates Love? [jeffery vaska ] Re: Who Hates Love? [Eb ] since we're reposting Usenet commentaries on Clinton.... [Eb ] Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist [amadain <] 90% political rant. please ignore. [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Ja] some light relief [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan)] Last words on the Sex-type thing [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 11:34:26 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist >Susan sez: > >>In some ways I am as left as Eddie, in some probably more radical (I don't >>see Eddie trying to advocate for s/m education/rights) > >I don't want to argue Susan, so I hope she doesn't take this response too >seriously or think I'm being deliberately insulting here; but she has >challenged the supremacy of my buddy Red-Eddie, and I must defend. Let's >see . . . No I have not :). You left in what I considered one exception, left out where I said "in some ways not". This is not a "who is more radical?" contest, and that was not what I was saying AT ALL. >brick with his own two hands. You, however, want to instruct the public >about the joys of nipple clamps. Somehow I think that Eddie remains more Um, no, actually, what I am interested in is people not getting investigated by the DCFS because their neighbors know they're perverts. What I am interested in is people knowing that they aren't freaks and not living in depression and agony because they think only serial killers feel as they do. What I am interested in is people having things like safe call systems so that their next date isn't their last. What I am interested in is people not dying because they didn't know how to do something safely. What I am interested in is tops not automatically getting arrested for assault whether or not the partner was consenting. What I am interested in is people being able to be out about their sexuality without getting fired from their jobs for it. I don't like your attitude, bub. This isn't about the "joys of nipple clamps". Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 98 11:54:41 -0600 From: steve Subject: Storefront "Best of Month" in SR STOREFRONT HITCHCOCK gets a long (for SR) and laudatory review from Brett Milano in the January '99 issue of Stereo Review. He also mentions how much he is looking forward to the "heavier pop" of JEWELS FOR SOPHIA. - - Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 98 13:08:04 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist Susan admonishes, >I don't like your attitude, bub. This isn't about the "joys of nipple >clamps". > >Love on ya, >Susan Oh, dear. Look . . . I *rarely* say things like this on the List, so I think I 'm entitled to it on a Sunday afternoon so close to the Solstice while carols of impeachment ring out in the frosty air. I must say, I hesitated about sending this to the List -- I like and respect Susan, and I don't want there to be bad blood between any two Listmembers. I think many times in the past I have been a voice of diplomacy and gemutlichkeit; so I'd like to think that this sort of thing is not mky usual idiom; but even though I am going to get flamed for this, and probably justly so, I just have to say my piece. Susan, chill out! -- We *all* know about your sexual crusade; most of us even support such radical ideas as erotic and sexual freedom. Being a libertarian at heart, I think you should be allowed to pretty much write, speak, smoke, and boff whatever you want as long as there's consent all around. But honestly, you're beginning to develop the distinct lack of humor that earmarks certain fanatics. I mean, are you into S/M for genuine joy, or for some weird political reasons? Because you certainly don't seem to be having much fun, or at least that's the impression I get from many of your posts that involve the topic. I for one don't need a lecture -- who you tie up in the privacy of your own home is none of my business, and if the neighbors call the cops, maybe you should consider being more quiet. Let's face it -- the workaday world is never going to think anything warm and fuzzy about S/M; it's hard enough just getting people to recognize such fundamental things as equal rights for gays. And besides, I bet if more and more people began openly exploring S/M and B/D, most of those in the scene would grump that it was becoming too vanilla. Those who *politicize* it overmuch often strike me as folks in need of a hopeless crusade to prop up their conception of themselves as subversives or radicals. And besides, being the son of a cop and having known many cops, they have bigger problems to face than arresting a pair of consenting adults, especially, I would assume, in a city like Chicago. Your lecture sounded to me like a shrill tirade from a person with the beginnings of a persecution complex which is making them increasingly more humorless. This is not the cheerful and humorous Susan that I thought knew, or at least remember. . . . There, I've said my piece, and if I seem a bit grumpy so be it. I know I'm a-gonna get flamed and flamed good, and I may even be way out of line here, but only one person is allowed to call me "bub," and that's Bugs Bunny. - --Quail, who frankly dislikes bedroom politics of the left, right, or center. +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 10:16:50 -0800 (PST) From: Danielle Subject: Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist > Somehow I think that Eddie remains more > radical than you, than me, than Che Guevera or even Jane Fonda from her > pre-Barbarella days. I think her 'radical' phase was post-Barbarella, if you're talking about the whole 'Hanoi Jane' thing. Nifty movie, though. Even after seeing From the Journals of Jean Seberg, another nifty movie. I vote yes on Hole. To quote myself in teenybopper mode: 'they fucking *rock*!' I am currently recovering from the hangover to end all hangovers. Ohhhhhhh, I feel profoundly bad. Though if I recall correctly (large portions of the evening are fuzzy to non-existent in my memory) I made many new friends within Houston's extensive 'hi, we're beautifully dressed and coiffed' gay community. And got lots of free drinks. Hence the hangover. Danielle, swearing once again never to touch another mind-altering substance _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 14:28:43 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, The Great Quail wrote: > Let's face it -- the workaday world is never going to > think anything warm and fuzzy about S/M; it's hard enough just getting > people to recognize such fundamental things as equal rights for gays. that's right now. but a certain amount of flirtation with bondage (silk scarves, etc.) is now, it seems to me, mainstream. people who do it are 'wild', but not really 'weird'. there was a time when homosexuality wasn't something you could discuss even in places where it was accepted; now there are a lot of places (not enough, not nearly, but -- ) where straight people will look down at someone who disparages gay folks. so my point is, things like this change. > And besides, being the son of a cop and having known many cops, they > have bigger problems to face than arresting a pair of consenting > adults they do, but *some* cops don't always tackle the most important problem before them at a given time. ask any black person who owns a car. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:39:45 -0800 (PST) From: jeffery vaska Subject: Re: Who Hates Love? hi fegz... joel, i agree wholeheartedly with this one (and what about celine dion??!!). did you know that hewitt what's her face has some multi-record deal in japan? happy holidays you all...ciao...jv - ---Joel Mullins wrote: > > Has anyone seen the latest video by that sexy horror queen Jennifer Love > Hewitt? Who the fuck does she think she's kidding? (Probably all the > idiots out there who can't think for themselves.) This is a prime > example of why I'm so cynical about the recording industry. Anyone with > sex appeal can get a video on MTV. You don't have to be able to sing! > Love Hewitt can sing, and she's definitely sexy, but Jesus Christ, it is > so obvious that someone is just trying to capitalize on her movie fame > by getting her to sing this song that sounds just like every > Alanis/Fiona/lady-grunge/nappy-hair shit song that I see on MTV!!! > Apparently, no one gives a damn about originality anymore. > > Well, I guess a few of us do. > > --Joel > _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 12:59:45 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Who Hates Love? >Has anyone seen the latest video by that sexy horror queen Jennifer Love >Hewitt? Who the fuck does she think she's kidding? (Probably all the >idiots out there who can't think for themselves.) This is a prime >example of why I'm so cynical about the recording industry. Anyone with >sex appeal can get a video on MTV. You don't have to be able to sing! >Love Hewitt can sing, and she's definitely sexy, but Jesus Christ, it is >so obvious that someone is just trying to capitalize on her movie fame >by getting her to sing this song that sounds just like every >Alanis/Fiona/lady-grunge/nappy-hair shit song that I see on MTV!!! >Apparently, no one gives a damn about originality anymore. > >Well, I guess a few of us do. Woo! The resurrection of the anti-Hewitt thread! You go! Goddamn. For a couple of months now, NBC has been showing classic SNL reruns in the wee hours of Saturday night (3 am, here). It's neat, because they're showing the full 1.5-hour versions, not the truncated hourlong versions which are in syndication. Whoever's picking which episodes to rebroadcast seems to be *consciously* picking shows with landmark musical guests. Maybe it's because the musical guests are often cut from the hourlong reruns. I already mentioned the Brian Wilson segment, which turned up in a previous week. They also showed the one with Paul Simon and George Harrison dueting, and the episode with the Peter Tosh tune where Mick Jagger unexpectedly popped on to sing backup. Anyway, last night I got to see THE musical performance I wanted to see again: Kate Bush's 1978 appearance, which is as far as I know, her only US live appearance EVER. First time I'd seen it since its original broadcast. Whee! And yes, I taped her segments, like a good little weenie. Now, if only they'd rerun the show with Captain Beefheart...I don't think I ever saw that one at all. (Or maybe I just had no idea whom he was at the time, and tuned it out.) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 13:18:45 -0800 From: Eb Subject: since we're reposting Usenet commentaries on Clinton.... > From: jdrown316@aol.com (Jdrown316) > Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank-zappa > Subject: CROSSHAIR ON COCKHAIRS HAHAHAHAHA > Lines: 23 > Date: 20 Dec 1998 03:18:54 GMT > > THEY THINK THAT CAN SHOOT DOWN THE BIGGEST COCKHAIR IN AMERICA > FUCK THAT SHIT THEY WONT HE WILL SURVIVE THIS AND HAVE MORE SEX > > > SO THEY THINK THEY CAN FUCK WITH CLINTON > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAH > > I DONT THINK SO > > FIRST OFF MY MANTIS WILL PRETECT HIS ASS CLINTON ISNT GOING DOWN THEY ARE >GOING > TO GET SHUT IN THE FRONT FACE I GUESS IT GOES TO CONGRESS THOSE FAGS WILL >TALK > IT OVER AND SAY FOR THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE SOME MORE SEX AND NOT WITH THAT FAT > FIRST LADY HAHAHAHHAAHAHHAAH FIRST WHORE HILLARY CLITON HAHAHAHAHHAHHA >SORRY IM > HORNY RIGHT NOW REALLY > > > > > > > HAH > AHA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:05:38 EST From: Tobyhello@aol.com Subject: Ex - Velvets (no RH) 2 questions: 1) John Cale's playing near me next month - is he worth seeing, or just a bit of an embarassment? 2) That Lou Reed documentary (Rock & Roll Heart) was shown on UK TV last night, and it rekindled my interest in Metal Machine Music - is it any good? I'm not worried about it being unlistenable (I'm sure that it's been superceded by more recent experimental stuff), just about whether it has any musical merit, if that makes sense. Toby ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 18:42:33 -0500 From: desmond in a tutu Subject: Re: RH on the Rolling Stone '98 albums list also sprach Daniel Saunders: >I don't know if anyone noticed, but Storefront Hitchcock was listed >among the fifty or so albums cited as "Music that matters" by Rolling >Stone magazine. this feature is also on the web at the spiel about _storefront hitchcock_, which is oddly paired with william burroughs, is at (and reproduced below for the web-challenged): ROBYN HITCHCOCK Storefront Hitchcock: Music From the Jonathan Demme Picture Warner Bros. Half the fun of a Robyn Hitchcock show is the songs; the other half is his introductions, his free-associative spins along the winding corridors of reason. He'll start with a name, "Martha" -- as the does before "Let's Go Thundering" on this soundtrack to Jonathan Demme's Hitchcock concert film -- then talk about molecules, ice cream, personal identity, anatomic structure ("If it weren't for our rib cages, it would just be spleens a go go") and the absurdity of song intros: "I can explain what it's about. And I'm going to be lying." Not really. In both lyrics and patter, Hitchcock works with hidden meanings, slippery layers of revelation. "The Yip! Song" is nonsense only if you miss the references to surgery, mortality and madness. In his trip back to Syd Barrett, Richard Nixon and "ghastly, mellow saxophones" in "1974," Hitchcock shows that nostalgia is really selective senility, that you can't learn from history if you refuse to remember anything but the fun stuff. Yet you can't help laughing along, which is why you shouldn't just settle for the Storefront CD. The double-LP vinyl edition has more songs, different banter. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:54:36 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: Ex - Velvets (no RH) Message-ID: <367DC662.F5F@swbell.net> Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 19:54:10 -0800 From: Joel Mullins Reply-To: skmull@swbell.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SBXA (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tobyhello@aol.com Subject: Re: Ex - Velvets (no RH) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 1) John Cale's playing near me next month - is he worth seeing, or just a bit > of an embarassment? I've never seen John Cale live, but I just naturally assume he puts on a great show. His solo work far surpasses that of Lou Reed's. He is an amazingly talented guy, and I for one would jump at the chance to see him live. > 2) That Lou Reed documentary (Rock & Roll Heart) was shown on UK TV last > night, and it rekindled my interest in Metal Machine Music - is it any good? > I'm not worried about it being unlistenable (I'm sure that it's been > superceded by more recent experimental stuff), just about whether it has any > musical merit, if that makes sense. Lou Reed intended for Metal Machine Music to be unlistenable. His record company at the time were asking him for a new album and he wasn't in the mood to record anything at the time. So, Metal Machine Music was basically a big Fuck You to the record company. His goal was to record the most unlistenable music imaginable and then his record company would have to release it. On the original vinyl issue, there was a deep groove at the end of the second side. This would cause it to skip and skip and skip until the listener got up and manually stopped it. Lou did this on purpose to piss people off and I think he succeeded. I'd love to get my hands on that original vinyl. - --Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 20:49:21 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: you could vote for labor...if you were a big fat communist >around. But honestly, you're beginning to develop the distinct lack of >humor that earmarks certain fanatics. Because you equate counselling and safety advocacy with "telling people about the joys of nipple clamps"? They're not equal concepts. There's a point where a joke is a joke, and there's a point where to laugh and let it pass is rather stepin' fetchit ish. >I mean, are you into S/M for genuine joy, or for some weird political reasons? I'm not "into s/m". I'm a pervert, and actually, I didn't choose to be, I just am. Unless you also would say that Melissa Etheridge is not a lesbian, but rather someone who is "into pussy", in which case we are using the term similarly :). > Because you certainly don't seem to be having much fun, or at least >that's the >impression I get from many of your posts that involve the >topic. Many of my posts that significantly involve the topic (all like, 3 of them) involve correcting what I see as gross misapprehensions. If I came in here saying "all swingers are pedophiles at heart", then you'd be within your rights to correct me, as well, and I wouldn't sneer at ya for it. >business, and if the neighbors call the cops, maybe you should consider >being more quiet. This isn't really about noise disturbances, you know. This is about nosy people calling child and family services, and ex-spouses with handy blackmail tools they aren't afraid to use. My point is, and I'm attempting to be clear without being overly strident, that this is more a matter of the stigma attached than it is a matter of "too noisy". >Let's face it -- the workaday world is never going to >think anything warm and fuzzy about S/M; it's hard enough just getting >people to recognize such fundamental things as equal rights for gays. Well, I'd say a lot more people have done that since the Stonewall days. Back in 1968 the vast majority of people thought "gay rights" was a ridiculous concept too. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder. It isn't anymore. How do you think that came about? It wasn't because of a bunch of people sitting around saying "they'll never accept us anyway, why bother, let's just live with it". I'm not aiming for warm/fuzzy. Tolerant would be fine. And you know, it's the funniest thing, but I do recall having heard a few people tell Eddie that what he works for is impossible too. Should he, too, give up on it and quit talking about it, ever? >besides, I bet if more and more people began openly exploring S/M and >B/D, most of those in the scene would grump that it was becoming too >vanilla. *shrug* Some people would. Some people are there because they're joiners. Some people are there because they like to feel "outre". Every "scene" has got those. They'll just move on to the next thing that strikes them as cool. >subversives or radicals. And besides, being the son of a cop and having >known many cops, they have bigger problems to face than arresting a pair >of consenting adults, Explain to me then how the Leather Rose kept getting busted for minor building code violations while the case of the murdered man found in the alley approximately 100 ft. from the Leather Rose was never solved, or in fact, attended to with near as much zeal as said code violations. Do they have bigger problems? Undoubtedly. I'm sure the police in a large city like Houston have more useful things to do than bust two adults for consensual sodomy, as well, but I notice it still went to court. I -know- people who have been fired from their jobs because someone didn't like their BDSM life. I also know people who've been visited by the DCFS. It's rather close to home. >here, but only one person is allowed to call me "bub," and that's Bugs >Bunny. Actually, that comment was meant in the spirit of the humor you so recently lamented. Sorry it didn't come across that way. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:54:43 +1300 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: 90% political rant. please ignore. >5) I am unsure what to make of Capuchin's allegation that I am a 'fish >slinger'. is this something to do with the song "Slinging you the midnight fish"? >ps- The best self-descriptive word I can think of (though I agree that... is there any word quite like 'unique'? Eddie chewed: >debora was interested in war tax resistance (in fact, you still have >that book i loaned you, debbie!) what? haven't you heard of communal property, comrade Tews? ;) Politics: Fuckin' 'ell. >Saddam Hussein is rather high on the list of people who shouldn't be >allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. I can think of close to 6,000,000,000 people who should be on that list. Iraq: I'm not happy with the situation. I probably wouldn't be that happy even if it were UN sanctioned, but it ain't - the US just moved on in uninvited. And it won't matter a fuck to Saddam - it's only the people of the country getting hurt, after all. There are no good solutions, but there are several which sound much more appealing than random military target (and surrounding residential area) bombings: what about sending in a commando force to take Saddam himself? Or - and here's one the US has used frewquently elsewhere - funding his political foes. If - as the US claims - significant sections of the Iraq people hate Saddam, then surely the US can stir those sections fo the populace up. The Amercian military hasn't been above giving a helping hand towards starting rebellions in the past... Re: Clinton: FWIW (very little) the majority of people I've heard speak about it here in NZ seem to think that 1) Clinton did wrong but did not act illegally 2) Clinton bent the truth but did not lie (he used a very strict definition of sex, is all. He is, a politician. Politicians train themselves to find ways to bend the truth without having it snap) 3) Impeaching a president for doing what a vast proportion of the population does is silly 4) most importantly, for congress (what an apt name!) to go against the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the US is undemocratic 5) the whole case is no big deal and should have been cleared up months ago 6) the more hype it is given (that includes through discussion on email), the more ridiculous the US is looking 7) Clinton models himself on Kennedy. What did you expect, fidelity? 8) The fault lies in the American *government*, not in the American *people* basically, in summary, the view here is "America's government has proved how ridiculous it can make itself and has become a complete laughing stock. Any mature country would have shrugged its shoulders and said "so, our leader is human. We'll remember that next time we vote". It has also shown just how far from its democratic ideals it has gone. The people of the country no longer have any say. Call yourselves a democracy? hah!" Of course, that's just how it appeards to the rest of the world. You probably have a completely different view of it at home. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this message are not necessary James ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 15:56:17 +1300 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: some light relief >>The remaining top 10 grossing acts are full colon open square bracket >>ellipsis dots close square bracket > >I fear for this world.... come on, Eb, can you honestly think of 10 other acts that gross? >>and The Church's "Hologram of Baal". >> >It's about time someone else on this list openly agreed with me?! ;-) I >also think it's a GREAT folllow-up to MAtS. Still very groovy and "churchy". oops - Eb'll get you for discussing the Church and (shudder) liking their music! James (np - The Blurred Crusade) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Dec 98 23:51:31 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Last words on the Sex-type thing Here's my last words on the subject. Susan writes, >I'm not "into s/m". I'm a pervert, and actually, I didn't choose to be, I >just am. Is that supposed to be funny? Or sarcastic? I honestly can't tell. I certainly don't think you are a pervert just because you like nonstandard sex; but I also don't buy the "I'm not bad I'm just drawn that way" routine of our increasingly Victimized Society. "I didn't choose to be an acidhead, I just am." Science has certainly showed us that more and more of our personalities are genetically inclined; but that does not remove responsibility, accountablity, or acting out upon preferences. I for one would LOVE to have been involved in a big Roman orgy, the more grape-munching dwarves the better; but I am not going codify this into a system of politics and claim that "I am a pervert because I was born that way and I can't help it." I will, however, fight tooth and nail to be able to have the RIGHT to have a Bacchanalia in the privacy of my own home with consenting men, women, and goats. I just don't place the need for public ACCEPTANCE of my sexual proclivities on the level of Martin Luther King Jr. Why? Becuse it is a private issue, not a public issue, as homosexuality is -- public. More on this in a bit. In other words, my issue is not with the *nature* of your fight -- and again, I support it wholeheartedly -- but with your perception of the *magnitude* of your fight; or at least with the words you choose to portray that perception. >Unless you also would say that Melissa Etheridge is not a lesbian, but >rather someone who is "into pussy" I believe, with 99% conviction, that being gay is primarily genetic. There are some things you just "are," like male or female, red or green. And I think that sexual ORIENTATION, not preference, is one of those. I know oodles of gay folks, including my best friend, whom I watched struggle with it as far back as grade school. But I do not, and will not believe, that being into S/M is a *genetic* orientation on that same level of profundity, and I am uncomfortable with the way you reduce my comments down to a level at which I look like a lazy reactionary do-nothing. Sure, some adventurous folk may like S/M; but it is not the same magnitude as being gay or straight, and to place the plight of S/M advocates on the same level as the plight of gays advocacy is insulting. It is a different situation, with a whole different system of signifiers, semiotics, and politics. Being gay is more than a lifestyle, it is more than what you do in the bedroom, it is more than being into pussy/dick, and it impacts a field of relationships far more public and profound than does the erotic proclivity to tie up your lover. Two people into S/M can walk down the street holding hands, can invite their SO over to family dinner, can hold a job without harrassment -- providing they don't blather on about whips and chains; in which case, as a former school teacher, let's just say that though I support marijuana legalization and smoked more reefer than Tim Leary, I *understood* that this wasn't the sort of thing to mention during a PTA conference. But being gay? Being afraid to bring your lover/spouse/mate to a public function? Being denied basic legal rights of marraige because your true love is of the same sex? Having to worry about getting beaten up at a bar just because you "look gay?" Come on, no one forces you to walk down the street in bondage gear. This is something done in the privacy of your own home, or in the confines of a club. It is not the same as being gay. Now, if you want to be an S/M advocate, go right ahead. If you want to change the laws so you can have sex or nudity in a public bar in your town, go right ahead -- I'm all for that! Just don't elevate it to the level of a big human rights issue. >Well, I'd say a lot more people have done that since the Stonewall days. >Back in 1968 the vast majority of people thought "gay rights" was a >ridiculous concept too. Homosexuality was classified as a disorder. It >isn't anymore. How do you think that came about? It wasn't because of a >bunch of people sitting around saying "they'll never accept us anyway, why >bother, let's just live with it". I also find it insulting when you chide me that I have an attitude that is counter to progress and productive change, just because I don't think the public will ever accept S/M. Your analogy about Stonewall and the 60s is specious indeed for all the reasons I've mentioned above. And no, I would never tell Eddie that his striving to Eat the State is useless, because at least I can respect his struggle against a perceived evil. Stopping the bombing of civilians and changing the nature of government are franky, in my opinion, more important that bringing about a utopia where Kindergarten teachers don't fear losing their jobs because they bring their bedroom habits into the faculty room. Believe me, I could go on and on for hours debating this and clarifying my point, but I don't think it's going to change much. You either agree with me or you don't; and I am content to let Susan respond and then put this thing to bed. - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #475 *******************************