Because whenever we do something, we have to accept society’s response (if society finds out about it) unless we’re able to change society.

I can frame any issue any way I like, but that doesn’t really mean squat as far as the rest of the population is concerned. You can try to live in the world that “should” exist or you can live in the one that actually does, and being a martyr for the Cause gets really tiring after a while (and you’re lucky if tired is all you get). It’s just like swimming upstream and though some certainly do it, none do it forever and any way you slice it it makes life harder than it otherwise would have been (I’m speaking from experience here). It doesn’t mean a cause isn’t worth fighting and sacrificing for, but don’t keep banging your head against the wall and expect someone to come along and move the wall for you someday, though if you keep it up long enough you may well knock a hole in it and make your incremental contribution to cultural evolution, then after you die they might erect a commemorative plaque marking the spot (but don’t count on it).

You may have consciousness on your side, but the skittish ignorant masses have police, guns, prisons, laws, economic leverage (“You’re fired!”), a mass-media propaganda machine, and of course “God” on their side. You’d better know the difference between theory and practice when you’re going up against that kind of inertia.

I forget who said it originally (I think it was J.R. “Bob” Dobbs), but this nails it: You must never let the villagers know of your Monster, for they will surely gather pitchforks and torches and soon appear at your door!

The stigma, the lack of sympathy, and the “negative consequences” are just as much a choice as the dreads, the piercings, and the tattoos. Why not frame the issue in that direction, instead of making it all the fault of the person with the dreads, piercings, and tattoos? A person’s choice to present themselves a certain way only “creates a problem” if other people’s negative response is inevitable. Why don’t we say that it’s “your” attitude that “creates the problem,” not my hair, clothes, or jewelery. Or, heck, be fair and put it 50/50 on both.

Accepting consequences is one approach, but if I don’t like the consequences, I will definitely fight against them. Again, why is your focus on the individual “accepting” society’s response, instead of society “accepting” the individual’s expression?

Traumatic insemination of a person’s head? You said: “…it’s equally silly to think of a male human being piercing his mate’s head with his penis to insert his sperm” which I would agree with because mammals don’t do that. A few invertebrates do it, but that’s how their brains are hard-wired. Among species that don’t ordinarily mate that way, have there been any known cases of an individual that spontaneously began engaging in traumatic insemination (or other silliness)?

And when I alluded to bonobos I thought that would clue y’all in to the fact that I have indeed studied quite a bit about animal behavior. Bonobos are well-known to exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors that are not the conventional penis/vagina reproductive variety. They engage in oral sex, homosexual sex, group sex, and apparently have sex quite often just for the hell of it. But do bonobos (or bedbugs) have fetishes in the way that humans do?

And as far as the poor-me stigma of the leather crowd goes, it’s no different than the stigma of having dreadlocks down to your butt or lots of piercings and tattoos; it’s felt when applying for a job or something but in all these examples the behavior being stigmatized is a choice made by the individual. It’s not like being homosexual or having very dark skin which are obviously not characteristics you can take off like clothing, or get trimmed like hair or removed like piercings (you can’t take off tattoos very easily but getting them is just as optional as the rest). So I could really care less if someone covers their face with tattoos or piercings, has long dreads, or insists on wearing bondage gear to an interview and then whines about being stigmatized by an inability to get a job or ostracized by mainstream society. It’s a problem you created for yourself, by choice. You could also choose to not share that aspect of your life with those who are unsympathetic. Right or wrong, some choices have undeserved negative consequences in society and accepting those consequences is part of making that choice.

A good friend of mine with long dreads got thrown to the ground and guns stuck to his head by cops a lot (even while at work and wearing a bright orange surveyor’s vest and carrying $10K in equipment in his marked work truck; he lives in the Southeastern US and they’re still mostly living in 1950 there). For that and other reasons he cut his dreads, and a $20 haircut changed the attitude of the cops he encountered from “get on the ground now you piece of shit!” to “can I help you, sir?” Discrimination like that isn’t right, but it’s how it is and you swim upstream at your own risk. I’m no threat to anyone into BDSM or the rest; I don’t push anyone around if they dress funny, I don’t want to make activities of consenting adults illegal, and I wouldn’t fire an employee for what they do on their own time or anything like that, so although my tone my be offensive to some of you I can assure you I’m not the person you need to worry about as you do your thing, even if I think it’s a symptom of screwy brain wiring.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa

People who speak out against LGBT people use the word “unnatural” rather a lot, and like to create extensive explanations for why same-sex sexual attraction and behaviour is “naturally repulsive”. You name it: lack of reproductive capacity, association with anal sex and/or other “unclean” sexual activities, disrupting the gender binary, etc etc.

(For a good and fairly recent example, see some of the language used in the linked film about corrective rape in South Africa here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/12/eudy-simelane-corrective-rape-south-africa)

If you think people who practice BDSM don’t face violence, prejudice and other unpleasant treatment, I’d suggest reading some of Patrick Califia’s articles on the subject, which express very clearly what it was like to be a person on the leather scene at a time when it was absolutely unacceptable outside a very small and tight-knit group.

I think that, on the whole, saying there’s *no* comparison is possibly a little too blanket a distinction.

Distrust and skepticism towards people who find pleasure in things naturally repulsive (in this case, violence and pain) is at least somewhat justified.

There’s no comparison between the two.

Non-explicit violence is something that people will often make you think you can’t complain about, which creates a huge problem when you are trying to go against violence in general.

On the other hand, when -for whatever reason-its necessary to a story, implied is usually less disturbing than explicit.

Extreme imagery as social commentary is a questionable idea to say the very least.

Personally, I have yet to see what good De Sade did to the world, except for opening the way to exonerating certain sexual fetishes-something that only benefits those who enjoy them.

I know the man suffered through terrible oppression and censorship, but the way his views are becoming more and more mainstream, at the expense of those who would much rather live without them -but find it increasingly difficult to do so- is not making me any more sympathetic.