My favorite part (as pointed out by bart calendar) is that he doesn't think BDSM is "Gorian" even though the first to letters are pretty clearly domination and submission, which is sort of the whole core of Gor. Sounds like he's either too full of himself for his own good, or too undereducated about what that word means to use it. Or both.
He appears to have an idealistic feudal idea of sex - women should be subservient, and they have of course agreed to do whatever their master wants, so their master should reciprocate by not entirely subjugating them. When he says
Women are wonderful, and precious. It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt her?
he appears to defend women against conjugal violence, but only by a) assuming that the man would naturally have the upper hand in any relationship, so a certain level of emotional or even physical violence in a relationship should be considered as a given, and b) denying that a woman might ever actively choose to be humiliated or hurt in certain limited and well-defined sexual circumstances.
I'd like to see a follow-up article where he was asked about safe-words.
It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt her? What would be the point of that, mere sadistic pleasure? I think we might distinguish between, say, S/M sex, or sadomasochistic sex, and M/S sex, or Master/Slave Sex. In a sense they seem opposite. Love is important. It is not to be confused with cruelty. Gratuitous cruelty seems to me uncalled for, and ugly, morally and aesthetically. Too, it seems unworthy of a true master. The point is loving and serving, and owning and mastering, not hurting. To be sure, the slave must understand that if she is not pleasing, she is subject to discipline. She is not to be left in doubt that she is a slave. It is easy to avoid discipline; she need only be obedient, submissive, and found pleasing, wholly, and in all ways. Sometimes a slave may desire to be reassured of her bondage. There are many ways in which the master, if he wishes, may see to this.
[emboldening and embiggening mine]
He's describing, blow by blow, S&M in a Bondage/Domination scenario, because he's John Norman and his neck beard is so vast that it leaves him unable communicate except through contradictions, like some modern day Captain Pike of rank stupid.
I think his problem is more with the next two letters, sadism and masochism. He seems to be all about psychological and intellectual dominance, not physical control; whips and chains need not apply.
I had to skim chunks of that article because he CANNOT SHUT UP, nor can he put down, release, abandon, set aside, or forget about his thesaurus. I wasn't all that interested in the Gor books before, but wow, now I'm REALLY not.
Ah, thank you. Clearly, I don't belong to the community, but as a self-ascribed Perveyor of Random Facts, I like to know this stuff, so I always appreciate it when someone can enlighten me. :)
Bleach, not enough of it. There's a reason why The Society for Creative Anachronisms had to make a policy ruling against the Gor fetish/cult slaver personas showing up at events.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 12:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 03:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 02:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 03:02 am (UTC)He appears to have an idealistic feudal idea of sex - women should be subservient, and they have of course agreed to do whatever their master wants, so their master should reciprocate by not entirely subjugating them. When he says
he appears to defend women against conjugal violence, but only by a) assuming that the man would naturally have the upper hand in any relationship, so a certain level of emotional or even physical violence in a relationship should be considered as a given, and b) denying that a woman might ever actively choose to be humiliated or hurt in certain limited and well-defined sexual circumstances.
I'd like to see a follow-up article where he was asked about safe-words.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 11:40 pm (UTC)[emboldening and embiggening mine]
He's describing, blow by blow, S&M in a Bondage/Domination scenario, because he's John Norman and his neck beard is so vast that it leaves him unable communicate except through contradictions, like some modern day Captain Pike of rank stupid.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 03:16 am (UTC)I had to skim chunks of that article because he CANNOT SHUT UP, nor can he put down, release, abandon, set aside, or forget about his thesaurus. I wasn't all that interested in the Gor books before, but wow, now I'm REALLY not.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 08:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 04:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-26 02:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-26 03:04 am (UTC)"M&M?"
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 09:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-26 02:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-26 06:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-24 10:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 07:35 am (UTC)There's a reason why The Society for Creative Anachronisms had to make a policy ruling against the Gor fetish/cult slaver personas showing up at events.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-25 09:02 am (UTC)Oh yes, I am delightful and precious, and if you try to own me I will kick you in the balls. :D