Uh, what was up for debate? Was it a You Are Fucking SICK -vs.- Hey Do Your Thing debate?

No. I think it was more of defining what kink is vs. is not. I believe the conclusion was everyone had their own ideas about that.

Ah. Well, on that, people can have whatever ideas they want to.

I'd trust the description from the New Guinean over a description from someone who watched it and thinks they know what's going on.

I'd trust the N.G.'s description of their experience and what it entails for them. But, I'd also reframe it in my head for a reaction from my own likes/dislikes/biases/etc. Just because the experience is [fill-in-the-blank] for one person, doesn't mean it's that way for everyone. I wouldn't tell the N.G. he's wrong, but I could say it wouldn't be the same for me.

Is that arrogant for the scientist to think this? What if the scientist conducts research that shows oxygen deprivation to the brain can cause similar hallucinations? Is that arrogant?

I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.

In the context of childbirth, I'd also add finding a way to interpret the process for others who may make a choice on whether to go through it some day.

Again, I'd ask the woman who gave birth instead of someone who had never gone through it.

My lived experience trumps someone who DIDN'T LIVE IT trying to tell me my business.

Heh. I agree. I've heard the 'I know best *because I am trained*' story - in a way designed to silence me - from everyone from psychiatrists to social workers. It's nearly impossible to fight back against that one.

I am being dragged away from the computer by The Girl after a slightly scary meltdown (it was me what melted down, not the computer), which is annoying as this is a great discussion. Back later.

But why? How is your interpretation of someone else's lived experience *possibly* worth more than their own experience?

I never said my or any other interpenetration was better. It's simply that's more convincing, and explains better, for me, "reality". Everyone could and should use the interpretation which stands for him/her.

I don't know much about anthropology, but my impression is that it's similar.

From my experience, it's different there. Then again, theoretical writing (which was always more interesting for me) doesn't usually use emancipatory or participatory methods. But it's always interesting to take ideas from there into the field and see if they worth anything. That's what I did with the papers on the factual value of media photography. The conclusions surprised me.

I wouldn't tell the N.G. he's wrong, but I could say it wouldn't be the same for me.

I have no problem with this -- your example, the N.G. person tells you about it, and then you decide it isn't FOR YOU.

My problem would be if the N.G. person told you about it, you decided to not do it because it's just not for you, and then you tell other people what the N.G. hunting experience is like, based on your conclusion that it's not for you.

So, if someone who has never given birth thinks childbirth can't be beautiful, despite being described as such by women who actually gave birth, then I'm going to have a problem with that.

I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.

OK, I'd agree with that.

A scientist might interpret that as an hallucination due to a temporary shortage of oxygen in the brain. Is that arrogant for the scientist to think this? What if the scientist conducts research that shows oxygen deprivation to the brain can cause similar hallucinations? Is that arrogant?

But a competent neurologist would not try to argue that the NDE didn't happen, or that the rapture felt by most people who have NDEs is false. There's no contradiction between saying "I saw a bright light and my grandmother and felt a sense of peace" and agreeing that it was caused by chemistry.

In the context of childbirth, I'd also add finding a way to interpret the process for others who may make a choice on whether to go through it some day.

If someone chooses adoption rather than pregnancy based on a worry that giving birth is painful, I would strongly advise them to think long and hard about whether they want to be raising a child at all.

I can't type and phrase myself as fast as you people, so I'm at least a step behind.

I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.

Would you find it arrogant of the supports of the Muslim culture center next to Ground Zero to tell those who oppose it that they're wrong in their views? Or the ones who think that Obama is Muslim? Again, these are the dangers of taking things at face value. I'd prefer to question some convenient truths than to sit and smile in dankness.

So, if someone who has never given birth thinks childbirth can't be beautiful, despite being described as such by women who actually gave birth, then I'm going to have a problem with that.

We agree on that. But it seems to me like you're sticking to the point where my views contradicting others' experiences. Which is not what it's about. It's about settling A and B, which seem contradicting to me, taking in to account their experiences. It's not that They're Wrong and That's It. It's the Why They Think/Act So? I Think I Have An Explanation. And any analysis which will ignore that this experience isn't beautiful due to personal view will be flawed. It'll just try to explain why it seem at beautiful, from another angle.