A Heterosexual Editor Reflects on the S&M Debate

I've just read through the S&M debate in Gay Today. Strangely enough, I found myself nodding along with each writer. How can I agree with those who disagree and don't even share some of my values? But that's what happened, what I experienced. Maybe that's why I call myself the Paradox Man and publish enigmas and other ambiguities of human thought, experience, and behavior.

First of all, I feel more akin to the ideas Jack Nichols and Arthur Evans express than those of Thomas Scott Tucker (although his stretched me more for the very reason that they were different than mine). I am, or at least choose to be this time around, a gentle soul.

But, as Dr. George Weinberg says could be the case, this has not always produced the kind of relationships I long for most. As I've stated many times, I am a male lesbian. That is, I operate very much on my own feminine side and want women I perceive as very, very feminine. However, those are not the women generally attracted to me. It's the masculine women who chase after me, overtly or covertly.

Most feminine women seem to run the other way. (One who didn't run for a good while shared her fantasy of being gang raped, a fantasy that repulsed me at the time and was never explored or talked about after the first mention.) And I have refused to be caught for very long by the masculine ones. I don't entertain even the thought of a gay experience or relationship.

Having established my own leanings somewhat briefly, let me add that I have trouble perceiving pain (hence any S&M practices) as pleasurable. I certainly cannot conceive of myself having an ecstatic experience either inflicting on another or having pain inflicted on my person.

I have had the experience in healing workshops of "soul traveling" to times and places that may or may not be my past lives. In many of these, I was at times the victim, and at others the victimizer; but I never had the sense that these were mutually agreed upon activities.

And I have chosen to identify with both roles and chalk them up to my soul's experience. It is through this process of personal identification with all the extremes that enter my plane of consciousness that I am able to "embrace the paradox" as I like to call it. I become all things. That, to me, is the path of loving, or at least learning to love, unconditionally.

And so, even though I feel aligned with the gentle values, I must also support those who differ. We must have the freedom as individuals to explore the heights and depths of our enigmatic beings. Those who feel the need to mix pain and pleasure, have their own reasons. We can speculate and pontificate in regard to this or a myriad of other things we have trouble understanding; but the fact remains, we are individuals.

To legislate morality at any level, to me, limits our ability to discover the depths of our beings and to re-member the lost parts of our souls. And that is an important step in personal and collective healing--read wholeness.

Having said this, however, let me close by saying that I also agree with Arthur Evans who emphasized the need for an open forum and free exchange of ideas on these and other matters. It is a good thing, in my opinion, to be exposed to as many points of view as possible--especially those that differ from our own. We don't know enough to judge another; and if we did, we wouldn't

These are the things that stretch our consciousness when we resist the fear of getting lost in the unfamiliar (for many people) territory of deep, reflective thought and intense personal feelings that are allowed to flow unrestricted and uncensored.

May the Light in all of us shine more brightly as we explore ourselves honestly and give others the same freedom. Shalom

Ron Van Dyke, Editor
Paradox Magazine

Unlike Arthur Evans, I haven't founded any hifalutin' gay-rights organization. I have simply lived as a gay man who happens to find the richest expression of my sexuality in an aspect of S/M.

Evans engages in a form of selective descriptive linguistics which I find particularly execrable, when he writes of "evaluating" fantasies and actions. "Evaluating" is his politically-correct euphemism for "judging." Who, may I inquire, invited Arthur Evans to either evaluate OR judge the way in which others express their personal sexuality? I certainly did not.

Evans states: "We also have to reflect on the implications of what we do, both for ourselves and for the society at large. We have to do so for sex and for every other aspect of our lives. That's what it means to be a mature human being." Permit me to observe that "mature human beings" are usually in possession of at least rudimentary manners. Manners which preclude passing judgment on the individual expression of sexuality. Evans is as guilty as any homophobe of wanting to redesign the sexual landscape to his own taste.

But, entertaining his wrongheadedness on the mores of sexual expression for a moment, let me examine the "implications" of my sexual behavior. I commit utterly consensual acts which I deeply desire, with another man who also deeply desires those acts. I do not do so in public. I do not attempt to coerce or entice others into experimenting with S/M if they have no desire to do so. I do what I do privately, with other like-minded men, and we experience the fulfillment of a deep need.

What are the "implications" of doing so? After twenty years of engaging in the behaviors Evans finds objectionable, I don't see any implications beyond the private fulfillment of a personal need. Mr. Evans is, to put it plainly, prejudiced. He doesn't like S/M, and therefore it is "wrong."

Evans' rhetoric on the issue of consent is merely space-filling twaddle: "But I say that consent is not enough. Dogs and cattle may rest content with consent, but not human beings." he writes. Dogs and cattle are incapable of consent. Consent requires an attribute animals do not possess -- free will. Animals are at the mercy of their instincts. Humans may choose. And it is choice which is the very bedrock of the "ethics" on which Evans bases his arguments. Mr. Evans would limit choice to those choices he personally finds acceptable. Perhaps a gentle reminder that no one has elected him the arbiter of sexual choice is in order. And, further, a gentle reminder that "acting out fantasies" and "expressing ideas" can be, and often are, identical in scope.

Related Stories from the GayToday Archive: Giving a Spanking to S&M The S&M Debates—Part II Ron Van Dyke: The Paradox Man on Sex and Spirituality Mike Batey Jailed 15-45 Years: An Update Related Sites: Gay Males S&M Activists Stop Dr. Laura.com Michael Batey GayToday does not endorse related sites.

Evans' final coup de grace regarding Pat Califia is an example of the lowest form of rabble-rousing. By invoking the dreaded swastika, he seeks to lend legitimacy to his arguments. Would he have condemned Ms. Califia's scarification as viciously if she'd scratched a cross, instead, into her partner? A yin-yang symbol? Mickey Mouse's silhouette? Lame, Mr. Evans, lame beyond belief -- and there are plenty of us who see right through that pathetic appeal to anti-Nazi sentiment.

S/M is a perfectly legitimate, perfectly harmless, and perfectly consensual expression of a particular sexuality. If you aren't turned on by it, no one will try to force you into it. Let's drop the absurd posturing about wider "implications." Mr. Evans' prejudices are showing, and he'd do well to educate himself about the realities of S/M before publishing the sort of inanity he wrote for Gay Today on the topic.

Sincerely,
T. Snyder

AB Simpson and the Western Rite Catholic Church have sunk thousands of dollars and as many hours into the effort to obtain justice for Mike, his friend John has taken a second mortgage on his house, a few concerned people have donated some hundreds of dollars. But all that is nothing against the $20,000 the appellate attorney wants, and the $50,000 the trial lawyer may ask(or hopefully may not). The lawsuit moves forward haltingly until it stalls completely for lack of funds.

As for myself, I have provided a Web site for the effort at http://connect.to/Batey.Org, and a great deal of my own time and effort in the web design and promotion...result: 3 hits a day

One individual responded with 'the Catholic church asking gays for money is like the Nazis asking the Jews'. We are not connected to the Roman Catholics and their billions of dollars, we are too small and poor to even afford professional fund-raisers. Our amateur efforts will have to sink or swim on their own.

Success at this point seems unlikely and Mike can be expected to die in prison, another innocent victim of bigotry and unjust laws, leaving behind family and friends who are helpless to aid him.

Most recently, Mike was given a new cellmate: a large black man sentenced for raping white men. There have been two more allegations of CSC within Mikes' family. There are continuing reports of officers beating prisoners for 'entertainment'.

The 'judge' will conduct a mis-trial hearing, but only those witnesses supporting the prosecution will be allowed, and only the homophobic judge will be permitted to question them. At the very best Mike is looking at yet another year and a half in prison, suffering from the still-untreated broken pelvis given to him upon arrest, and continued abuse from prison authorities.

It appears that the tens of millions of gays and straights claiming to support justice are just not interested enough in the plight of one man to offer their help, though the lawsuit does have national implications.

The depression and urge to give up caused by this general lack of response is great, but the implications of surrender are unacceptable. If Mike loses all hope, he can be expected to suicide, who could blame him? Then we who failed to help will share the guilt.

Who will be next?