Weak Endnotes

Ralph E. Luker - 11/17/2010

The similarity is your presumptuousness in commenting at Cliopatria with *certainty* about what I, we, others must do and say. You've shown bad judgment about that in the past. There's no reason now to think that your judgment is any better. In retrospect, Tim Burke's silence in the face of the Duke lacrosse case was evidence of his wisdom. Wiser than my comments. Wiser than yours. Then or now, I don't need your instructions about what I must do or say.

Julie Hofmann - 11/17/2010

Ralph, go stuff yourself. I've pretty much had it with your obsession with the Duke LAX case and your characterization of my role in it as being at all important. As for apologizing and your offline assertion that my arguments carry no moral weight because I have not apologized? Ridiculous.

Yes, I blogged about the case and said that I thought it needed more attention. Yes, I urged you all at Cliopatria to publicize it, because I thought then, as I think now, that cases like this one, proved or not, are important. At the time, you inferred that I wanted Cliopatria to cover it because of your Duke connection, and at the time, I said that I had forgotten you had such a connection.

That's one point. Here's the second:

At the time, when I blogged about it, I called the assault "alleged" and the only reference I made to guilt was that I considered guilty all of the LAX players who refused to come forward, either to clear their friends or to convict them (LOOK! NOT SAYING THOSE ACCUSED WERE GUILTY) .

When you opened a discussion here at Cliopatria, the discussion did indeed lean towards the commenters, including yourself, believing there was some truth to the accusations, given the circumstances. That conversation was one I think needs to be held, whether or not those accused and charged are convicted, because it was a case where there were multiple dynamics of race, class, gender, and privilege that are worth discussing, full stop.

Third Point:

As you pointed out yourself, many news organizations had already posted on it -- if I were somehow more influential than the CHE, I'd be surprised. Since the report I linked to existed there, and it was reported and linked to in the same way that bloggers link to any other accusation of criminal activity from a reputable source, your accusation of my being part of a mob is pretty hard to understand.

So honestly, I'm not clear on why I owe anybody an apology I reported there were accusations, I encouraged people to pay attention and spread the word, because cases like this are important, even when they turn out to be unfounded.


Finally, if we were to follow your reasoning, both regarding the woman in that case (after all, you said, carrying on would mean she had to reveal to the world that she was a single mother working her way through college by stripping) AND the men, it would be the Duke LAX players' fault:

After all, they held a house party where men got very drunk and hired a couple of strippers so that they could ogle and objectify them and generally behave in ways that certainly indicate that they have an affinity for Dominant/submissive sexual fantasies and practices, as well as in ways that show that they consider (some) women to be merely there for their enjoyment. So if one of those women decided to get her own back with a false accusation, well, they shouldn't have put themselves in a position where that could happen, should they? In any case, I'm surprised that you think I should apologize to them for the results of their indiscretions and lack of prudence.


Oh, and by the way? I don't think any reasonable reader sees this case at Duke to be even remotely like KCJ's bullying.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

You mean I'm wrong about not having to conform to the parameters of your narrowly drawn questions? When will you admit there was no rape in the Duke lacrosse case? And when will you apologize for feeding the mob spirit in it?

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

Wrong. I'd be happy if your answers were direct, addressed the questions, and were based on evidence applied equally to any person in any equivalent situation.

That's not the case here.

Alan Allport - 11/16/2010

I don't follow DiW closely enough to pronounce on whether it is bullying or not.

Then educate yourself. Take a look at what they get up to over on that site. But I warn you: it's not always pretty.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Alan, Last time I looked, you weren't the only person in this discussion so I wasn't changing the subject. I was pointing to an instance in which Julie was demanding that others, including us at Cliopatria, join in what was a real mob. I don't follow DiW closely enough to pronounce on whether it is bullying or not. Maybe the Duke Dominator meets his match in the BC Dominator. I don't have any evidence that Sigal's been materially damaged in any way. Show me the red welts on *his* back.

Alan Allport - 11/16/2010

Speaking of shame ...

Yes. We are. And I'm not Julie. So stop trying to change the subject. Is DiW bullying, or isn't it? simple question.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

You've repeatedly misconstrued what I've said. You've said, for example, that I'd deny Sigal's right to employment. Of course, I've never said that. In the first place, employment isn't a right -- just ask the unemployed. I probably wouldn't hire him if it were up to me. But there are lots of people who are not hired and for lots of reasons. As far as I can tell, KC hasn't violated Sigal's civil rights. Perhaps you can show me where he has.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Speaking of shame, what about Julie's? Early on, she demanded that Cliopatria condemn the Duke lacrosse rape. She's never got up to the point of admitting that THERE WAS NO RAPE! Prosecuting attorney's been ousted from office and disbarred. Attorney General of North Carolina has apologized to the accused Duke students, but Julie Hofmann sees no need to acknowledge what everyone else knows in spades. Shameful, Julie.

Alan Allport - 11/16/2010

Seriously, you own an apology to all the *real* victims of *real* mobs."

I'm sorry, I didn't realize my words would be interpreted so ploddingly literally.

So I'll be clearer. No, I'm not saying that Professor Sigal is in fear of his life. Nor is he in any imminent danger of losing his job. But he does appear to have lost his right to any reasonable peace of mind. KC is apparently willing and eager to dig up anything he can find about Sigal's private life that might embarrass him, regardless of whether or not it has anything remotely to do with the Duke Lacross case. The only motivation for this appears to be straightforward revenge; Segal did something that KC dislikes, and so he's going to pay for it indefinitely. And the DiW boys and girls are going to whoop and holler and enjoy every minute.

Don't want to call this a mob? Fine with me. It's bullying. It's unpleasant. And you've lined up in support of it. To your shame.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Ralph, if it were up to me, you'd have been tenured and wealthy long ago. But the word 'mob' has a variety of common uses, scales and contexts into which Alan's use of the term fits quite comfortably.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

I respectfully disagree. I stand behind my statements and challenges to you.

Your unwillingness, until now, to put any distance between your views and KC's actions and views is at the root of this entire discussion, and any misunderstandings which you think we've perpetrated are the result of having no basis on which to believe otherwise.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

You *forgot* that part about having lost it.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

O. K. Use this: "Some mob! Send them after me. I could use the money. Seriously, you own an apology to all the *real* victims of *real* mobs."

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Now he admits that we have a moral claim against KC.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Alan didn't use the word 'lynch' nor did he imply it in any way.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Tell me where that "nasty little mob" has gathered to do its dirty work. Is Sigel still alive? Is he still employed? Will he draw next month's pay check? How much is it? Some lynch mob! Send them after me. I could use the money. Seriously, you owe an apology to all the *real* victims of *real* lynch mobs.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

You continue to mis- and mal-construe my position to the point that you've lost all moral claim against KC's use of Sigel's photograph.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

There's no "hiding behind" the Constitution here. You'd be satisfied with my responses to your questions *only* if I repeated the answers that you approve. I have *no* obligation to do that.

Alan Allport - 11/16/2010

And that's all.

KC has encouraged the formation of a nasty little mob which hurls anonymous, cowardly abuse at its chosen targets, regardless of whether or not that abuse is remotely relevant to the original Duke Lacrosse case.

And you've sided with the mob.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

I suppose we disagree about whether it is KC's fault that Sigal didn't understand the limits (non-existence) of privacy on Facebook.

There's actually two separate issues here, both of which we disagree on. First is the factual question of whether KC violated the terms of FB and the privacy rights of Peter Sigal by copying and reposting the picture. Second is whether the picture is, in any way, relevant to any question which KC might be legitimately discussing and to which you could link without having your judgement called into question.

I have, for example, never denied that American citizens who participate in domination and abuse sex games have the rights of American citizens.

Depends on your definition of rights, I suppose. You seem to think they don't have the right to serve as university faculty or discuss their sexual entertainments with friends. Nor do you think that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that strangers who discuss their sex lives in professional contexts should be considered snoops, gossips, busybodies, titilators or otherwise failing in their moral and social obligations.

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

Nice hiding behind the Constitution on this. Perhaps, this last time, I should point out that the questions here are ones of privilege, moral rights and obligations, and ethical behavior.

Privilege: the position from which you operate and a set of presuppositions that protect people like you, but are not accorded to those whose sexual identities and behaviors you find offensive

moral rights: the rights of those people to not have their sex lives connected to their professional identities in ways that people who are straight/monogamous/vanilla do

moral obligation: that one about treating others as we would like to be treated -- You have continually sidestepped this one by falling back on excuses that rely on your having defined some people as less than you are, by virtue of their "psychological affliction"

ethical behavior: what KCJ has flaunted, by taking a picture from someone's facebook page and publicizing it in a context that surely was not the owner of that picture's intent, and surely without the owner's permission.


But whatever. There's no point in discussing things with a person who sidesteps questions, deflects to irrelevant topics, hijacks the conversation, and masters the position of the disingenuous victim as well as you.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Julie,
I entirely agree with you that, by the time you and Jonathan finish mis- and mal-construing what I have said, your readings of it are bizarre. I have, for example, never denied that American citizens who participate in domination and abuse sex games have the rights of American citizens. American citizens have the rights of American citizens. Got it? Why would you claim that I've said otherwise? Bizarre, indeed. You are certainly free to question KC's motives all you wish. I've never said otherwise and you've certainly exercised your entitlement. I suppose we disagree about whether it is KC's fault that Sigel didn't understand the limits (non-existence) of privacy on Facebook.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

I've been trying to convince you of something - several things, actually - which includes trying to show where I believe your arguments are weak and your assertions are wrong.

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

Ralph, I am not sure which of the things you have said here is the most bizarre, but here are the top contenders:

• The person in question is a sadist -- ffs, the actions in the picture wouldn't qualify as sadism. Bondage, maybe. Domination and submission, maybe. Sadism? where?
  
  
• people whose sex lives don't measure up to your ideas of normality are 'psychologically afflicted" and/or have a "psychological disorder" , so they don't have the same rights as the rest of us. By the way, what you call a disorder is not recognized as one by the APA, unless there is no consent or unless it interferes with the person's normal social functioning
  
  
• people with actual psychological disorders recognized by the APA and the WHO apparently do have the rights everyone else does -- or you simply refuse to answer that question
  
  
• contracts should be public. Contracts between consenting adults for non-normative sexual behavior are private, so we should assume that there is something wrong with those -- likely that they are not between consenting adults.
  
  
• since the person abrogated his rights to not have his life spread further than he chose to spread it, simply by posting a picture on facebook where people could copy and paste it, he should have known better and the person who posted the pic without permission is not to be questioned as to motives or anything else.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

On the first, who monitors these engagements to patrol the boundaries? Since they are private, probably no one except the two "consenting adults". Who's to say what happened? I prefer public agreements, publicly agreed to. I doubt that bondage contracts would fall in that category.
No, I didn't come "awfully close." You've tried to put as negative a reading as possible on everything I've said in this discussionl.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Bondage "contracts" don't.

Yes, they do. If they don't it stops being bondage play and starts being sexual assault.

Did I say being gay or lesbian was a psychological disability?

Not in so many words, but you came awfully close. That's the point of the question: to clarify.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Did I say being gay or lesbian was a psychological disability? No. Are you playing Joe McCarthy? Yes.
Your piling on of exceptions boils down to one: contract. Contracts normally have carefully drawn understandings with external supervision of agreements. Bondage "contracts" don't. I'll take my beautiful sentiment. You can have your private slavery.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Haven't looked for proof, Julie. Haven't felt the need to. You don't convince me that I do.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

So, being gay or lesbian is a psychological disability?

freedom is so close to who we are as human beings that we cannot in our right minds surrender it and no one is obliged to recognize our surrender of it.

Except for marriage, and the rules of society, laws, the rules of games, contracts, employment and ...

Beautiful sentiment, really, but you're being highly selective and don't seem to realize it.

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

Nice deflection, Ralph. Care to answer my question. or do you just want to keep blaming the victim of KCs unethical behavior?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

The word "consenting" is always in doubt, when you are talking about bondage and slavery. I'm afraid that I'm taught that by the notion that freedom is so close to who we are as human beings that we cannot in our right minds surrender it and no one is obliged to recognize our surrender of it.
I'm not saying either of those things, though setting out to hire a lesbian or a gay person seems like a bad idea in and of itself. I'm certainly not in favor of a faculty purge -- if you weren't being so hostile, why would you even ask? -- but I don't see a psychological disability as a credential.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

Obviously privacy settings on Facebook did not keep KC from finding the evidence of Sigel's sadism. I'd say that's a good lesson for all of us. You put it on Facebook, it isn't private. If you put it there, your students and their parents are apt to find it. Finding it isn't their fault. It's the fault of the person putting it there, especially if they want it kept private. We've been through all of this before about pseudonymous and anonymous blogs. Discretion and prudence are recommended.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Bondage play between consenting adults is like slavery?

I can be as gracious as anyone toward people who suffer these afflictions, but afflictions they are. -- not identity groups that need to be represented in our faculty ranks.

"I have nothing against them personally - some of them are fine fellows - but they don't belong here."

Are you saying that sexual diversity shouldn't be a factor in hiring and retention, or are you saying that sexual deviants should be purged from the academy?

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

got any proof of that, Ralph? Because as far as I can tell, it's not considered an affliction, or even a mental disorder, by the experts. On the other hand, depression and ADHD are actual disorders -- psychological afflictions, if you like -- does that mean that those of us faculty who suffer from those things are obliged to reveal our afflictions? Should we be judged for them? if I put something about it on facebook, does KCJ have a right to post about it because students and parents have a "right to know"?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/16/2010

It's just odd, Jonathan, that you would have accused me of being ungracious and then return with this simple-minded, hostile reading of my position. It is true that I think of sado-masochism, bondage, and practices like cutting as symptomatic of psychological illness. I do not understand the attitude of folk like yourselves who have no problem condemning slavery, but insist that I must be tolerant of bondage. I can be as gracious as anyone toward people who suffer these afflictions, but afflictions they are. -- not identity groups that need to be represented in our faculty ranks.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/16/2010

Julie, I think I just figured out a part of the problem, thanks to your question and Ralph's answer.

We keep asking what the relevance is, as though sexuality had to implicate something specific to justify a prejudice. Ralph's asserting that sexuality prejudices - the automatic assumption that certain sexual practices, especially when acknowledged publicly, are inherently bad by nature and anyone who is associated with them is therefore of a low moral character regardless of other considerations - are still OK and do not yet require justification. "Those people" should know their place, instead of flaunting themselves before decent vanilla-appearing folk, and if they should find their way into the public sphere, their contributions, personal rights, and views can be simply discounted. Any suggestion to the contrary is radicalism, polluting the body politic, and anyway it's unnecessary since they can live their lives in squalid degeneracy as long as they do so separately from the rest of us.

Julie Hofmann - 11/16/2010

I'm not sure which issue isn't settled. You can feel whatever like. But I notice that you haven't once explained clearly why the sexual identity that you attribute to this man is more relevant than that of someone who identifies -- or presents -- as straight, monogamous, vanilla, or whatever variety of sexual identity you choose to consider normative.

I'm certainly not the only one who's asked you to do that. Perhaps it's your refusal to answer explicitly that's the killer of debate :-)

Ralph E. Luker - 11/15/2010

Julie, My point has been and is that this is *not* a settled issue. It is contended, whether you like that or not. I understand that you think all identities are equal and irrelevant. But just because you think that doesn't mean that it obliges me. That's how you kill discussion and debate. That's how you impose your standards on me. You wonder that I object?

Julie Hofmann - 11/15/2010

Ralph,

He didn't. Or rather, it is only an issue because you refuse to see that you are not applying the same standards to Sigal that you apply to straight, monogamous, and vanilla people -- the people you seem to consider normal.

So let's accept that those three things are considered norms. That means that, evidence to the contrary, our assumptions about other people's sexuality is that they are straight, monogamous, and vanilla. There is a ton of privilege involved here -- such people do not have to defend their sexuality to anyone else. If there's a picture of a straight couple displaying affection, or dressed up in drag for a costume party, or doing anything that might signal their sexuality, they don't have to defend it. If they decide to take those pictures down for whatever reason, they don't have to justify it.

Straight, monogamous & vanilla people don't have to deal with questions of whether their sexuality has anything to do with their professional qualifications OR their professionalism. Hell, as long as people APPEAR to be straight, monogamous and vanilla and/or stray from the first two discreetly and with consenting adults not their students, those questions don't come up. And if they did -- if, for example, straight contemporaries of yours were not particularly discreet about a longstanding extramarital "conference relationship" (I've been told such things exist), would appearing in a photo together on the internet open them up to this sort of questioning? Doubtful.

In this case, though, because a picture *might* indicate a person is not vanilla, and the person has removed that picture after KCJ took it without permission and reposted it -- which might be a copyright/use violation -- he has to defend his decision because "he put his sexuality out there." No. No. No.

If his sexuality is out there, as you say it is, it is only because people like you are unwilling to allow people who are not straight/monogamous/vanilla/'appropriately' modest the right to be treated equally as professionals and colleagues. Your moral distaste is trumping your recognition of discrimination and your own unchecked privilege.

You can try to defend this with as many straw men as you'd like, but really, that's all that it is. Simple discrimination and prejudice and moral outrage against someone whose sexuality doesn't meet your standards, masked by some fatuous claims that we have a right to know because it's relevant.

At the very least, you might explain very clearly how you think it *is* relevant , but you will need to apply the same standards to yourself to make it work.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/15/2010

You asked me to explain my purpose. I did. Is Sigel ashamed of his sexuality? If so, why? If not, why not? I didn't make his sexuality a public issue, he did.

Alan Allport - 11/15/2010

As I said, I would attempt, as you do, to explain KC's purposes. I explained mine and you ignored the explanation.

Problem is, Ralph, that your 'explanation' is so woolly that it doesn't really explain anything. You think that KC's post "says something about where we are" - it's a contribution to the "discussion and debate." This is the sort of nebulous language students hide behind when summarizing a reading they don't really understand.

But I think you understand KC's post perfectly well. Indeed, its meaning is hard to miss. And to your credit, I think you're slightly embarrassed to be seen endorsing such a snide piece of character assassination. Which is why you're caught in this curious position of trying to stoutly defend an argument you're ashamed to clearly spell out ...

Ralph E. Luker - 11/15/2010

As I said, I would attempt, as you do, to explain KC's purposes. I explained mine and you ignored the explanation.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

That's an awfully *intolerant* from someone who, supposedly, is defending tolerance. I'll try to remember next time not to disagree with Julie Hofmann. Seriously, Julie this is contested territory and you can't close discussion just because you have an opinion. As a matter of fact, KC's credentials as a supporter of gay rights is very well established. And, as a matter of fact, I paid dues on civil rights before you were in grade school. So, save your contempt for people worthy of contempt. KC and I are not.

Julie Hofmann - 11/14/2010

I'm nor entirely sure it's really the S&M part of BDSM that he's demonstrating, btw, Ralph.

I think my point was clear that our identities and beliefs do influence our work as scholars. Having said that, I try to keep mine out of the classroom and think I might be reasonably successful at that, as students in the same class are often sure that I am on both sides of certain given issues because of the way I try to get them to see things from the perspectives of people in the past.

But really, this is all beside the point. As others have pointed out less bluntly than I shall, this isn't about any sort of high-minded ideal. This is narrow-minded prejudice and some sort of misplaced and self-imposed moral superiority masquerading as action in the public interest. If, for example, he was a well-closeted gay man whose facebook pictures showed him with someone who appeared to be a male partner, would KC have had a right to out him? If his pictures showed that he was incredibly vanilla and mainstream and an ordained minister who chose to come off as somewhat less mainstream and edgy in the classroom to give himself some street cred, would those pictures have been posted at all?

No. They only serve to cater to people's prurience and a schadenfreude based on the fact that many people find kink unacceptable and offensive.

I find equally offensive the fact that you are setting up a straw man regarding the removal of the picture -- there are any number of reasons why people might take down a picture, including being perfectly happy for a small group of friends to see something that they might not want everybody in the world to see. Context is important. You seem unwilling to accept that, and, as in the past (I seem to remember similar conversations over young women portraying themselves online in a certain fashion), are allowing your own sense of decorum and morality to dictate someone else's behavior.

I can't speak for Sigel, because I don't know him. Perhaps you do, but from the way you are writing about him, that seems fairly unlikely.

But there is one more thing -- You don't know, nor do any of us -- what is actually happening in that picture, nor do any of us know whether it represents the man's sexual proclivities or not. I don't care whether it does. You clearly do.

But as someone who identifies as a historian, Ralph, don't you consider is pretty shoddy work to assume all you have simply from a picture whose provenance and context you know nothing about?

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

I think it says something about where we are in faculty membership and identity politics. Julie, for example, seems to find all identities equal and, even, irrelevant; I think not. That makes room for discussion and debate. Whichever side might suppress discussion and debate, that seems to me to be unhealthy. So, I'm serious in suggesting that if Sigel really is serious about sado-masochist liberation/pride, he ought to leave his photograph up on his Facebook page.

Hmm. So you think the point was to say "something" about "where we are"?

If I was a cynic, Ralph, I'd suggest that you know full well what point KC was trying to make, but you're too embarrassed to admit what it was. So you're taking refuge in these vague euphemisms.

Not that I'm a cynic, of course.

So I'll help you out. I agree with you that KC was trying to say "something." And the something he was trying to say went something like this: what right does this freak have to lecture Ordinary Decent People Like Us about sexuality?

D'you think that more or less captures it?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

I think it says something about where we are in faculty membership and identity politics. Julie, for example, seems to find all identities equal and, even, irrelevant; I think not. That makes room for discussion and debate. Whichever side might suppress discussion and debate, that seems to me to be unhealthy. So, I'm serious in suggesting that if Sigel really is serious about sado-masochist liberation/pride, he ought to leave his photograph up on his Facebook page.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

I don't think that I should try to speak for KC in that regard.

I didn't ask you to speak for KC. I asked you to speak for yourself. You presumably think there was some pertinent reason to bring this evidence up. So, what was it?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

By the way, Julie, if we have arrived at the moment of sado-masochist pride, I should think that Sigel would want to have left his photograph up on his Facebook page -- so that mom, dad, his brothers & sisters, friends at home & abroad, students, faculty colleagues, administrators, righties and lefties, all might know what seemed necessary for Sigel to say about himself.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

I don't think that I should try to speak for KC in that regard.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

KC merely cited the evidence that Sigel offered up.

Ralph, historians don't just cite evidence for the sake of it. They cite evidence in order to advance an argument. So can you explain to us what argument, specifically, you believe KC was trying to make by bringing up this evidence?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Julie, Sigel advertises himself as a historian of sexuality and advertised his sexual proclivities on his Facebook page. Do you think that being a woman has nothing to do with your feminism or your work as a historian of women? Sigel made his sado-masochism a public issue. KC merely cited the evidence that Sigel offered up. I'm not sure when we started attacking other historians for citing evidence, but it's a bad idea.

Julie Hofmann - 11/14/2010

Ralph, I have to say I don't see what the man's sexual preferences have to do with his teaching, any more than the most vanilla sexual preferences of another faculty member has to do with hir teaching. Or rather, I see it as no more of an issue than my feminism or my colleague's religious beliefs, or any other sort of personal detail Professionals deal with such things professionally, either by keeping them out of the classroom or by making them known so students can allow for that perspective.

Nor do I think students or their parents have any right to know unless he brings it up to them. If his students are his facebook friends, that's one thing, but even then, I think KCJ is out of line. After all, if the students *already* know, what is the purpose served here? If Sigel's picture was not made available to them and not available to the fb community at large, then it is an invasion of his privacy.

I also don't see how any sexual practices between consenting adults are a matter for anyone else's judgement in the sense that you are judging them. Norms change and practices long in the closet are far more visible today than in the past. I am the first to admit that there are lots of sorts of kink that make me very uncomfortable, but I'm not about to start deciding what 'normal' sex or relationships are. That's the basis of legislation against gays and was at the root of miscegenation laws. I don't want this country going there again.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

*Of course* some other bloggers were attacked by some of KC's readers. Why would I deny that? Acknowledging that is no capitulation at all and if *that's* the core of your argument, you've got a weak one. The rest of this is standing evidence that you don't know what a non sequitur is.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

"Jonathan, I appreciate your attempt to depict those attacked by KC's readers as oppressed people."
I'm surprised that you acknowledge the attacks, since they are at the core of my argument about KC's irresponsibility in this matter. It's more or less a capitulation on your part.

Non Sequitur, Tu quoque: "They gave as good as they got and, in another conversation, you'd insist that that's so."

Non Sequitur: "Do you think Sigel's sado-masochism picture promoted good familial relations?"

Non Sequitur: "You really *ought* to distinguish between openness in sexuality and advocacy in sexuality."

Non Sequitur, misreading, etc: "Finally, I'd appreciate it if you'd point to a single instance where my "prudish" attitudes have led me to harass *anyone* and I'd appreciate having your apology here and now."

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

And did not specify your Latinate issues.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

I made no such accusation.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

So KC, not Sigel, is the sado-masochist!

Nah. Don't see much sign of masochism over there. Sadism? You betcha.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Whoa! So KC, not Sigel, is the sado-masochist! You model good logic, Alan.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

I'll say one thing about that post on DiW: it certainly demonstrates an unhealthy obsession with disciplining and punishing. But not on Professor Sigels' part.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Specifically, what are the "3 non sequiters"? What is the "tu quoque"? Your pretentious latinisms don't excuse your own bad argumentation. I take the accusation that I'm trying to change the subject as a back-handed apology for accusing me of harassing other people.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

You might bother yourself to document your claims. KC did that.
As for the destruction of Sigel's familial communications, the very thought of "Look, ma, I get my jollies by beating young men" is slightly zany.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

I'm not sure what you think I'm "yessing". You seem to be referring to two different things. But if you think I'm going to criticize KC for doing research, you're mistaken.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

I count 3 non sequiters, a tu quoque, and a conclusion that is either a serious misreading or an attempt to derail the conversation by personalizing it.

I'm sorry that you think I implicated you in anything other than bad argumentation and an uncharitable attitude.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

Do you think it is KC's intention to intimidate and embarrass?

Umm, yes?

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

That's a 'yes,' I think.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Do you think it is KC's intention to intimidate and embarrass? If Sigel is embarrassed, he ought to have thought before putting his sado-masochism out for the public to look at.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Jonathan, I appreciate your attempt to depict those attacked by KC's readers as oppressed people. They gave as good as they got and, in another conversation, you'd insist that that's so. Do you think Sigel's sado-masochism picture promoted good familial relations? Some family! You really *ought* to distinguish between openness in sexuality and advocacy in sexuality. Finally, I'd appreciate it if you'd point to a single instance where my "prudish" attitudes have led me to harass *anyone* and I'd appreciate having your apology here and now.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

And if the people in your neighborhood began combing through the garbage purely for the purpose of trying to intimidate and embarrass one another, you'd find that okey-dokey too, would you?

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

on a blog

Not just any blog, Ralph. Durham-in-Wonderland has been the launching site for quite a few campaigns of harassment. I certainly don't want to be mentioned there, in any capacity. Sigal's facebook page appears to have disappeared: do you think he should be hounded off of social media sites, cut off from friends and family, because KC Johnson's readers have the same prudish reaction you do?

before putting it in either place.

Really, Ralph? You're blaming Sigal for Johnson's flagrant attempt to inflame and amuse his constituents?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Apparently Sigel's photograph on a blog surpasses his level of embarrassment, tho his photograph on his facebook page doesn't. He should have thought more carefully before putting it in either place.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

I would generally consider open-mindedness and a high threshold of embarassment to be positive qualifications for a serious scholar of sexuality.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

Alan, I live in a reasonably well-to-do neighborhood, in which people occasionally put very nice things out by the street for disposal. Those things often have lots of good use left in them and I am inclined to look through them for what I might want. If it's on the curb and I have use for it, I take it. I see nothing wrong with that. I see nothing wrong with KC's doing it. The owner put it out there for the public's disposal.

Alan Allport - 11/14/2010

So Ralph, would you be in favor of KC and the Gang rummaging through this guy's garbage too?

After all, he put it out on the street, didn't he?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

So, I'm to believe *your* claim that Sigel's sado-masochism has *nothing* to do with his claim of expertise and a teaching field in the history of sexuality?

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

You're taking KC Johnson's word for that? Or just assuming that anything on a person's facebook page or elsewhere on the web is 'public' even if it's intended to be private and has nothing to do with their professional life?

Never mind, Ralph. The longer we have this discussion, the more likely it is that KC Johnson's going to notice, and the last thing I need is the D-i-W treatment.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/14/2010

There's no invasion of privacy. Sigel put his private life in public. That seems difficult for you to understand.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/14/2010

You still haven't explained why it matters, to justify the invasion of privacy. It's pure ad hominem.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/13/2010

You can accuse me of "prudery" all you want to. It's fashionable to do so. But consider the word's common origin with "prudence" and "prudential". If Sigel were more prudent, he wouldn't have self-advertised as an abuser. His so-called "privacy settings" obviously weren't private enough.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/13/2010

I don't see the relevance: I see prudery. Do you think he's a sexual predator, because he believes in S&M-style play? Do you think his sexuality affects his ability to teach Latin American history? Do you think Duke students who voluntarily take classes in the history of sexuality are going to be disturbed by the diversity of adult sexual activity?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/13/2010

If Sigel's going to self-promote as a dungeon master, I think students and parents have a right to know the mindset. I don't want to pay $50 K a year to have my child exposed, as it were, to him and his ilk.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/13/2010

His students and their parents have a right to know how he gets his rocks off.

We should all have facebook pages with our detailed sexual preferences available so that our students and their parents (you're kidding right? Our students are mostly legal adults.) can vet us for sexual suitability? Or maybe we can develop a short-form code we can put on our business cards and in the course catalog, so there's no confusion.

Sigel, not KC, put Sigel's odd sexual behavior into the public arena.

Do you know what Sigel's privacy settings were before KC went Drudge on him? Do you care?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/13/2010

I can't see that KC is the person to be faulted here. Sigel, not KC, put Sigel's odd sexual behavior into the public arena. If he's liberated to the point of corporal punishment pride, Sigel ought to leave his photograph on his Facebook page. His students and their parents have a right to know how he gets his rocks off.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/13/2010

You know, Ralph, I'd almost forgotten that Durham-in-Wonderland was still an ongoing project. Apparently Johnson hasn't raised his standards of evidence or rhetoric since the last time I checked it.