From fork-admin@xent.com Fri Sep 6 11:42:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787CB16F20 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:39:56 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Fri, 06 Sep 2002 11:39:56 +0100 (IST) Received: from webnote.net (mail.webnote.net [193.120.211.219]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g869s7C29392 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:54:07 +0100 Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by webnote.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18922 for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 23:08:05 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0662B294209; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:38:03 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@example.com Received: from isolnetsux.techmonkeys.net (isolnetsux.techmonkeys.net [64.243.46.20]) by xent.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB37C2940AA for ; Thu, 5 Sep 2002 14:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3166 invoked by uid 501); 5 Sep 2002 21:40:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 5 Sep 2002 21:40:13 -0000 From: CDale To: Eirikur Hallgrimsson Cc: FoRK Subject: Re: Ouch... In-Reply-To: <200209051432.42151.eh@mad.scientist.com> Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@example.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 16:40:13 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-13.2 required=7.0 tests=AWL,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_02_03, USER_AGENT_PINE version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: LOL! They're not doomed at all. Thousands of men wear cb2000s to work every day (along with other chastity devices). They are not just decorations. You will not get a woody or have an orgasm until your keyholder allows you to. Anyhow, I know better than to have this type of conversation with a 'nilla, but these men wear these happily, and consensually. (: There is little power struggle in the lifestyles of the people who use these. There is power exchange instead. Lots of variations on the definition, but this one's from Gloria Brame's site: Power exchange: the consensual transfer of power by the submissive to the dominant. The exchange takes place when the returned energy from the dominant empowers the submissive. Anyhow, there are tons of informative sites out there for anyone who cares to read them, but I assure you, the chastity device business is doing very well, and it is illegal to force someone to wear one. It's not coercion, it is creative sensuality. (: Cindy On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Eirikur Hallgrimsson wrote: > On Wednesday 04 September 2002 10:59 pm, CDale wrote: > > Someone needs to tell the mayor about this: > > http://www.cb-2000.com/ > > "Chastity" technologies were doomed from the start, and I'll add chemical > ones to the trash heap. (Yeah, Cindy, these are decorative toys for the > subculture, but....) > > Generally,someone is attempting to preserve a relationship with this > nonsense, when quite plainly the the relationship is in a state where > preserving it is of little value. Hardware is of no real use save for > playing the power-struggle game. I don't want to see the future of this. > "Invisible Fence" for your mate. "Must wear" location transponders and > endocrine monitors. More movies like "Minority Report." > > It seems so automatic for people to reach for coercive solutions. So > surprizing given the low absolute effectiveness of coercion in the absense > of overwhelming force advantage. > > Eirikur > > > -- "I don't take no stocks in mathematics, anyway" --Huckleberry Finn