LEATHERFOLK should publicly denounce "Abuse Ghraib"

ABUSE GHRAIB should concern queers, nudists, and leatherfolk.
Two of these "behavioral minorities" have been heard from. How about the third?

Abuses at Abu Ghraib involve psychological and cultural aspects, including: forced pseudo-queer contacts, forced nudity, and coercive practices superficially resembling BDSM play. Some media and politicians have loosely used the term "sadistic" to describe the guards; while the guards have tried to "queerify" some prisoners.

The "Abuse Ghraib" scandal, and reactions to it, have raised cultural issues which queers, nudists, and leatherfolk need to address publicly. In some ways, the guards' action look (on camera) like mockeries, or crude imitations, of queer, nudist, and BDSM behaviors, and like initiation rituals -- at least as misunderstood by poorly-informed soldiers. (I leave aside, just temporarily, the strong probability that these guards thought they were following orders to "Gitmo-ize" their captives.)

Queer folks have spoken up already:
[ http://www.gaycitynews.com/5_13/pentagonusesgayssex.html ]
( circa 13 May 2004); reposted at
[ http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/05/1681574.php ].

And the undersigned nudist has pubicly commented on forced stripping of captive men in the presence of women [ http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/04/1679074.php ] (30 April 2004). There I tried to explain that public nudity may be much more traumatic to the average Arab Muslim man, than it would be to the average Western man, for cultural and religious and historical reasons. I've also called for U.S. adults to protest this abuse by wearing hoods and little else
[ http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/05/1680350.php ](10 May 04). Following that call, I demonstrated nude on May 16, wearing a hood, at Bay 2 Breakers in San Francisco; receiving positive responses not only from the anti-Bush majority, but even from one self-described Republican.

Have any BDSM persons (leatherfolk) published commentaries/analyses, so far, in publicly-accessible media, websites, etc.? (I'm not counting private in-group communications in restricted e-lists, members-only newsletters, invitation-only meetings, or other forums inside "the leather closet".)

Are consenting masochists and sadists upset at wide-spread pejorative use of the word "sadist"? Don't leatherfolk want to educate the public about differences between play (as seen publicly at Folsom Street Fair) and real abuse (as seen in photos and videos from Iraq)? After all, some "safe, sane and consensual" play scenes and some real abuses may look very similar on film; with the most important differences being hidden within the minds of persons present.

In real-life abuse, whether in a household or a prison, there's no "safeword", no consent, no negotiated limits, and so forth. Once consent vanishes, safety and sanity may be the next to go. Make-believe and reality may turn into an explosive mixture, causing permanent damage, which (probably) wasn't intended nor anticipated.

Possible topics for public education include: How do mock interrogations in "psychological play" differ from real interrogations? And how does psychological play differ from real "psychological warfare"?

Has anyone seen any serious public commentary about these topics, on the Net or in hardcopy, from BDSM writers or players? If so, please send URL to SUN ( seniornude [at] prodigy.net ).

*** In addition to educating the public, leather groups and individuals should clearly and forcefully denounce the "pseudo-SM" exhibited at Abu Ghraib. I propose that leatherfolk carry signs or banners, in Pride parades and other demonstrations, presenting messages like this: "YES to consensual play; NO to real abuse". Let's leave no doubt lingering in the mind of any bystander. ***

Such explicit statements may seem superfluous to some in the leather communities, who might retort, "Obviously we're against that crap. How could anyone ever think otherwise?" After all, many California SM players are liberal, progressive, or libertarian; and many may participate in anti-war marches, usually in "vanilla" attire.

Yet much of the vanilla public knows very little about responsible players; and may be misled by seeing fascist symbols or military and police costumes, or by watching or reading SM porn (which, unlike actual play, is often unsafe, insane, and non-consensual). Because most players stay in the closet, many vanilla folk believe that they don't know even one of "those people"; and thus may believe stereotypes and distortions commonly found in mass media. Thus they may NOT realize that players, or at least 90% of us, are offended when Lynndie holds a naked captive on a dog-leash; thus making him feel intense shame; and perhaps permanently damaging his self-respect, or depriving him of being respected in the future by his own family, tribe, town, etc.

Thanks in advance for this info,
Tortuga Bi LIBERTY
http://pages.prodigy.net/seniornude
sfBarea [at] yahoogroups.com
San Francisco
24 May 2004
PS 1: Personal disclosure: As my middle name indicates, I'm queer. I'm also a core member of the clothing-optionality movement; and a marginal member of the leather community. Personally, I wouldn't mind Lynndie leading me around naked on a leash, but ONLY in consensual play. )
...........

PS 2: For readers who know nothing about responsible BDSM, I suggest that you first look on the web for .ORG sites, then look at sites which responsible non-profits link to.
Or one could start one's search at Janus.org, and/or at Greenery Press.
...........
Please forward this message to queer and BDSM sites, journals, etc.; whether public or private.
..........