As I continue to read this thread and the negative comments and criticisms, I find myself regularly asking: "Who cares? What difference does that make?"

I think this is because it was fairly self-evident to me from the start that we aren't talking about a single "Gorean" philosophy -- there's no Pope of Gor setting doctrine and issuing edicts -- we're talking about how Kuskovian and Denuseri have adapted the base ideas to their lives. Just as thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands (?)) of others have -- each, group or individual, in different ways. In my opinion, it's really Kuskodenuserigorean Philosophy that they're trying to relate.

No, they don't call it that, but neither does the follower of any philosophy preface every comment they make about it with "in my interpretation of". Isn't that somewhat obvious?

So from that perspective, I simply don't understand some of the criticisms offered.

What difference does it make that source of Gor is fiction?

One of my favorite books is Jonathan Livingston Seagull. I take to heart the philosophy that we, each of us, has the potential for greatness within if we apply ourselves and persevere. I do not, however, believe in talking seagulls who break the sound barrier; I accept the reality that seagulls are flying rats. It doesn't make the philosophy any less relevant or meaningful to me.

What difference does it make that Norman may or may not be misogynistic or insane?

Volkswagen was Hitler's idea. Sometimes good ideas come from crazy people. Further, I'm really impressed with those who can diagnose mental illness based on an individual's fictional writings.

What difference does it make that there are some who apply Gorean aspects to their lifestyles in ways you consider dangerous?

Some "Christians" picket military funerals claiming that every soldier's death is God's punishment on America for tolerating homosexuality -- that doesn't negate the actions of the Southern Baptists who show up at natural disasters with their mobile kitchens to feed those in need.

Within BDSM itself, there are innumerable instances of individuals using the trappings and slogans we accept in order to lure the unsuspecting into dangerous or deadly situations. We don't preface every discussion with reference to them, we don't qualify every reference to "safe, sane, consensual" or RACK with "but they might not mean it and could be dangerous". So why is there so much talk about the dangers here?

What difference does it make if the writing's bad?

I tried reading the Gor books once -- I stopped, because I didn't like the writing style. That's a personal thing about what I choose to do for entertainment, but what on earth does it have to do with how Kuskovian and Denuseri apply the ideas presented their to their own lives?

What difference does it make that "we're not on Gor"?

<sarcasm>Well, duh. </sarcasm>

Like it or not, a significant basis for the BDSM lifestyle is fantasy. We may take it seriously, we may take it as far as we can, but "slave" isn't real in the strict, literal definition of the word -- a literal "slave" can't pick up the phone, dial 911 and get out of it; a literal "slave" can't end the relationship by choice. So criticism on the basis of fantasy of those who chose to live by philosophies of Gor are somewhat ridiculous -- especially because those espousing their beliefs here don't claim to be living on Gor, they claim to be living by philosophies they've adapted to their lives here.

If anything, they seem to have created a more "real", less "fantasy", lifestyle than many in the BDSM community.

Does it really matter that they call themselves "Gorean"?

No, they're not from Gor. Do they claim to be? "Gorean" doesn't have to mean "from Gor", it can also mean "a follower of that philosophy". I'd think the word "philosophy" in the thread title would make that clear. From what I've read of their postings, it's also clear that they don't pretend something on the weekend and then change for work on Monday -- they've created a lifestyle that works for them interacting with other "Goreans" (sans any spaceships) and with traditional society. That adaption doesn't mean they take their philosophy any less seriously, simply that they're not imposing it on others.

They've created a world-view based on the writings about Gor -- that does make them "Goreans", just as creating a world-view based on the writings of Christ makes one a Christian. Yes, I'm aware Gor isn't a religion, the comparison is still valid.

Okay, fine, call it Kuskodenuserigoreanism, if you must -- but the base is "Gorean", just as Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic all roll up to Christian. There's typically no need to be that specific.

What difference does it make that there are crazies who call themselves "Goreans"?

BDSM in general has plenty of crazies -- does that make the traditional society that condemns all of us right to do so? The crazies don't have a lot to do with Kuskodenuserigoreanism -- unless you think the two of them are nuts -- so why is it any more relevant to this discussion than the "regular" BDSM crazies are to every discussion here?