Hi Starchild,
If I recruit you to the pleasures of stamp collecting it means you
now are a stamp collector.
: - )
--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
wrote:
The term "recruiting" is interesting in this context.
Normally, to
"recruit" someone is to sign them up for some kind of job. It also
often carries military connotations, e.g. "recruits" being new
soldiers. But BDSM is neither a job nor a military operation, but
rather a hobby or lifestyle. What does it mean to "recruit"
someone
to a hobby or lifestyle? If I turn you on to the pleasures of
stamp
collecting, would it be appropriate to say I "recruited" you? Or
would that term only apply if you go out and spend a lot of money
on
stamps or something?
Love & liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
> You are right, Mike! I just realized that I did not use the
> word "defend" in my original e-mail; I used "protect." "Protect",
in
> recollection, became the much more intense "defend!" Which might
> indicate that I am not exactly moving towards being persuaded. And
> perhaps, like me, others (other voters?) when confronted with the
> arguments?
>
> Very interesting about fear coming from "leaning on the door." I
am
> not ready to accept that as a primary cause for fear; for now I
will
> stick to the "recruiting" idea. But if I review my own personal
> emotions on that particular aspect of the fear, I find that my
> primary reaction is *not* fear of *my* leaning on the door, but
fear
> for others doing so. Therefore, my objections become guilt free
and
> perceived as benevolent! So, Mike, if my perceptions are not
> uncommon, it would appear to me that outreaching to bondage and
> sadomasochism might translate into disreaching to everyone else.
> Believe it or not, I do hope I am hopelessly stuck in the 18th
> century, and totally wrong about all this.
>
> Marcy
>
> --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks once again, Marcy, for the unfailing generosity of
spirit you
> > bring to all exchanges.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Amen to our supporting popular causes!
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. I didn't find the word defend in your previous e-mail. But I
> > confess to having smiled at your reference to recruitment. It's
a
> > common enough fear-beautifully spoofed by the toaster oven
giveaway-
> but
> > I don't think I've ever known a case I would think of as
recruitment
> > into deviant sexuality. It's never been my impression that most
> > people's sexual interests were that fluid. The persistence of
the
> fear
> > I can ascribe only to people's perceiving themselves as so
> susceptible.
> > These alternative sexualities must look awfully tempting on some
> level.
> > I suppose that, to people who have kept the door very tightly
closed
> > against the monsters in the closet all their lives, just
opening the
> > door a crack for a look can be scary enough. But in cases like
> that,
> > it's more the leaning on the door than the things on the other
side
> > which are causing the fear.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Amarcy D.
Berry
> > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 12:19 PM
> > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [lpsf-activists] [Fwd: Re: Pricing for full-color
> postcard?]
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Your arguments are completely understood by me and very well
taken.
> > I confess that my e-mail was revealing emotions rather
political or
> > social stance. Your response properly addresses two separate
issues:
> >
> > 1. You view the LP as a champion of unpopular causes:
> >
> > So do I, although not exclusively so. No reason why the LP would
> not
> > also champion popular causes, such as getting out of Iraq under
the
> > Libertarian non-intervention rule (as you did in the Stop
Funding
> the
> > War Rally). Or, as I intimated in my e-mail, unpopular socially
> > conservative causes.
> >
> > 2. What is so scary about other people's private consensual
acts?
> > (I am assuming the question addresses "some" consensual acts,
since
> > not *all* private consensual acts are scary.)
> >
> > I don't know. They just are. So, I do not have a good answer for
> you
> > here at all. However, I am wondering whether the fear comes
from a
> > suspicion that perpetrators of some acts are indeed in a
minority
> and
> > must recruit non-perpetrators to their camp. I note how I used
the
> > word "defend" in my previous e-mail, for instance.
> >
> > Well, if you read this far, thank you, Mike.
> >
> > Marcy
> >
> > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com> , "Acree, Michael"
> > <acreem@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Marcy:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I always appreciate your honesty. I'm not an advocate of BDSM,
> > either.
> > > But the issue of how many voters, or how many San
Franciscans, are
> > > afraid of it is largely beside the point. I see libertarians
as
> the
> > > primary champions of unpopular, oppressed minorities. Many
things
> > that
> > > were once frightening to most voters, like homosexuality or
dark
> > skin,
> > > are now less frightening, thanks to somebody's having stood up
> for
> > them
> > > when it was unpopular, and even dangerous. It would not
reflect
> > well on
> > > the Libertarian Party to wait until such constituencies became
> more
> > > mainstream before we offered our support. If numbers mean
> anything,
> > > then small numbers are an indication that a group may
especially
> > need
> > > our support for protection of their rights.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But the real question here is the one about vulnerability. It
is
> > not
> > > obvious how private consensual acts on the part of others are
a
> > threat
> > > to us. Clearly many heterosexuals do feel threatened by the
idea
> > of gay
> > > marriage, but isn't it ridiculous on the face of it that
someone
> > else's
> > > relationship-relationships between people we don't even know--
> could
> > be a
> > > reflection on our own? You're under no obligation to answer,
of
> > course;
> > > but, if the conversation is to continue, it looks to me as
though
> > that's
> > > the direction it needs to go: What is so scary about other
> people's
> > > private consensual acts?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > > From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Amarcy
D.
> Berry
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:46 PM
> > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] [Fwd: Re: Pricing for full-color
> > postcard?]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Rob and Mike A.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your e-mails. I appreciate your caring. But,
entre
> > > nous, I remain scared. Maybe because I am a woman, of a
previous
> > > generation, a generation that was told that women and children
> were
> > > vulnerable. The fact that I run a successful business and
answer
> to
> > > no one but my conscience does not seem to erase that essence
of
> > > vulnerability. Do I want the government to protect me and my
> child?
> > > No. I will do that myself. Do I want to advocate bondage and
> > > sadomasochism, stuff that sounds like it hurts? No. Sounds
silly
> > *to
> > > me*. Would I ever vote for legislation criminalizing bondage
and
> > > sadomasochism? No, of course not. Do whatever floats your
boat.
> No
> > > more would I vote for criminalizing bondage and sadomasochism
> than
> > I
> > > would for criminalizing intelligent design. But, somehow, I
> remain
> > > afraid of both. And I feel the majority of San Francisco
voters
> do
> > as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com> , Rob Power
<robpower@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No need to be scared, Marcy. 
> > > >
> > > > Actually, one of the issues that I expect the LPMA to pick
up
> in
> > the
> > > > next year or two is that Massachusetts still does not have
an
> > > informed
> > > > consent law. What this means is that a middle-aged woman who
> > > > consensually participates in BDSM play with her middle-aged
> male
> > > partner
> > > > faces serious criminal charges -- domestic violence charges
for
> > > him, and
> > > > accomplice to domestic violence charges for her. It's
utterly
> > > insane.
> > > > And if she has kids, these ridiculous charges, even though
> they'd
> > be
> > > > laughed out of a courtroom by our notoriously liberal judges
> and
> > > juries,
> > > > would still result in her children being taken away from
her by
> > > state
> > > > bureaucrats (since family law doesn't have any real due
process
> > > rights
> > > > for the accused). Hence, members of the BDSM community have
to
> > > drive to
> > > > Providence, RI before they do anything, or else risk having
> their
> > > lives
> > > > destroyed by the government for private consensual sexual
> > > activities.
> > > > (This whole issue of sex laws no longer seriously enforced,
yet
> > > kept on
> > > > the books with non-criminal consequences such as loss of
child
> > > custody
> > > > and certain types of jobs like schoolteaching, is almost
> exactly
> > the
> > > > same as the situation for gay people before sodomy laws were
> > struck
> > > down
> > > > by the Supreme Court in Lawrence in 2003.)
> > > >
> > > > California already has such an informed consent law, so I
see
> why
> > > it's
> > > > not an important issue for the BDSM community there. But
> > > Massachusetts
> > > > is by no means the only state where these ridiculous laws
still
> > > exist
> > > > that will treat consensual BDSM participants as criminals,
with
> > the
> > > man
> > > > as the abuser and the "abused" woman as an accomplice to the
> > > abuse. And
> > > > unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans are as averse
to
> > > dealing
> > > > with this issue as they were about gay rights or medical
> > marijuana
> > > 20 or
> > > > 30 years ago. If the Libertarians don't address this, nobody
> will.
> > > >
> > > > Well, except for maybe Dan Quayle who famously said we need
> > > more "family
> > > > bondage" in this country. 
> > > >
> > > > Rob
> > > >
> > > > Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, Oh! I think you just scared me away! What is "BDSM and
> other
> > > > > variations"?! : - )
> > > > >
> > > > > Marcy
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>, "Acree,
Michael"
> > > <acreem@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, Rob. I like the idea of these cards, and the
price
> > seems
> > > > > > reasonable. I'm not sure who our candidate tie-in on the
> back
> > > > > would be
> > > > > > this year, but next year, if our nominee were someone
like
> > > Kubby or
> > > > > > Smith, strong on gay rights, I would donate for
production
> of
> > > both
> > > > > cards
> > > > > > and brochures. In the meantime, I'd like to try
broadening
> the
> > > > > brochure
> > > > > > to include BDSM and other variations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > [mailto:lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
Rob
> > Power
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:26 AM
> > > > > > To: lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > <mailto:lpsf-activists%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > Subject: [lpsf-activists] [Fwd: Re: Pricing for full-
color
> > > > > postcard?]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, it doesn't look like there's much interest in the
> rainbow
> > > > > postcards
> > > > > > for this year's SF Pride, but here's the estimate from
> > > LPStuff.com
> > > > > for
> > > > > > future reference. We may just buy a batch at the
national
> > level,
> > > > > since
> > > > > > we've budgeted for glossy brochures, yet nobody with
design
> > > skills
> > > > > has
> > > > > > stepped forward to redesign our brochure. Glossy color
is a
> > > waste of
> > > > > > money on our current brochure design. Might as well
spend
> > that
> > > money
> > > > > > instead on these cards which probably will be better
> received
> > at
> > > > > Pride
> > > > > > events anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rob
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Pricing for full-color postcard?
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:08:56 -0500
> > > > > > From: LPStuff Administrator <admin@
> > > > > > <mailto:admin%40lpstuff.com> >
> > > > > > To: Rob Power <chair@ <mailto:chair%40outrightusa.org> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We would be happy to produce this for you. Below are our
> > prices
> > > for
> > > > > just
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > production. It doesn't include design or shipping fees.
If
> > you
> > > send
> > > > > us
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > the artwork ready to print, you can avoid the design
fee all
> > > > > together -
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > the other hand, if we do it, reordering will be a
breeze as
> > > well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One last thing before I get to the prices - you receive
a 5%
> > > > > discount
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > coupon code LP05 on this order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4/5" x 5.5" Standard Postcard Size
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Full color Front/Black on Back (4/1)
> > > > > > 500: $60
> > > > > > 1,000: $65
> > > > > > 5,000: $160
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Full color Front/Full color Back (4/4)
> > > > > > 500: $80
> > > > > > 1,000: $110
> > > > > > 5,000: $180
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Estimate for design fee: $50.00
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please let me know if you have any additional
questions -
> > feel
> > > free
> > > > > to
> > > > > > call
> > > > > > anytime.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > 1-800-444-8618 x 103
> > > > > > LPStuff Admin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to find out how much you'd charge for
something
> > like
> > > this
> > > > > > postcard:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-
gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta->
> > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-> >
> > > smack-em-
> > > > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-
gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta->
> > smack-
> > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
smack-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
smack->
> >
> > > em->
> > > > > in-f
> > > > > > orehea
> > > > > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-
gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta->
> > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-> >
> > > smack-
> > > > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-
gotta-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta->
> > smack-
> > > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
smack-
> > <http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/08/you-gotta-
smack->
> >
> > > >
> > > > > em-in-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > d-with-it.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > with the same rainbow and "Vote your values." on the
> front,
> > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > the BruceGuthrie.com url with OutrightLibertarians.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and then what pricing options are available for the
back,
> > from
> > > > > full
> > > > > > > color to black and white. We'd like to start with a
> smaller
> > > run
> > > > > to see
> > > > > > > how they turn out, but would be interested in finding
out