Bondage and Patriarchy
| January 6th, 2006A few posters have requested that I transfer this discussion of BDSM and patriarchy into its own thread (right now it’s taking place in the “root of all oppression” thread). So here are a couple of posts, to get this thread started; and then I’ll copy over a bunch of the comments, where appropriate.
Myca wrote:
What I mean by #2 is that . . . well . . . hmm . . . look, I don’t think that gay male relationships are sexist because they exclude women. In fact, I lose respect for people who make that argument. I don’t think that a relationship between two white people is racist because it excludes black people. Once again, I would lose respect for anyone who make that argument. For me, BDSM is the same thing.
“Excluding women” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding women outside of it. “Excluding black people” in the bedroom or in a romantic relationship isn’t the same thing as excluding black people out of it. A deliberate choice to play out a power imbalance in the bedroom isn’t the same thing is perpetuating a power imbalance outside of it. Maybe it’s just that I think of sexual/romantic relationships as something “different.” It’s just how we are. We’re attracted to who we’re attracted to. We get off how we get off. Our kinks are our kinks.
Then, cicely wrote:
In any case, it is not impossible for an individual to work in a battered womens shelter, campaign for better childcare facilities, a more even distribution between the seccses of wealth in society, whatever - i.e make a significant practical contribution to the betterment of womens lives, then go home (or somewhere) and engage in consensual d/s sexual activity! These things are not mutually exclusive.
After that, Charles responded:
As a fellow pervert :), I have to strongly disagree with your rejection of the idea that BDSM practice should be subject to radical feminist analysis (cicely, your position seems more nuanced than Myca’s blanket rejection, but I still find it problematic).
The fact that sexual preference is largely not subject to conscious control does not mean it shouldn’t be examined critically. The fact that one can both be a feminist and have BDSM desires (and practices) does not mean that one’s BDSM practice and desire is positively compatible with one’s feminism (one can also be an asshole and a feminist, or a professional torturer and a feminist, so coexistence doesn’t equal validation).
Likewise, that BDSM does not consist of a trivial replication of men oppressing women does not mean that it is unconnected to patriarchy.
While it is possible to have specific meaningful discussions of the basis of the eroticization of power without referencing patriarchal domination, I think that refusing to talk about the relationship between eroticization of power and patriarchal domination (or rejecting such arguments as naive) is crippling to a full understanding of either.
I think treating sexuality as something that just is is a mistake, and I think that trying to understand sexuality under patriarchy while ignoring that the sexuality under discussion exists under patriarchy is a mistake. I also think that recognizing that BDSM sexuality is constructed under patriarchy is not a simply blanket condemnation of BDSM sexuality, particularly not in comparison to unconsidered vanilla sexuality, which is (obviously) also constructed under patriarchy. While it is possible to work to reconstruct one’s sexuality in a direction that is oppositional towards patriarchy (and I think that Safe/Sane/Consensual BDSM is to some extent such an effort), I think that to do so requires recognizing the relationships between one’s sexuality and patriarchal oppression.
Incidentally, my own views on my own sexuality are (strangely enough) strongly influenced by Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (originally by osmosis in the late 80’s, but when I actually read it a few years back I was impressed with how strong the osmosis had been), so I feel strongly that radical feminism can provide useful tools for understanding BDSM sexuality in terms that are more complex than “BDSM is bad”.
cicely, I realize that you commented that you were not trying to start this conversation here, but I think it might be an interesting one. Perhaps it needs a top level post of its own? Amp expressed to me a willingness to have such a top level post, if you and Myca would be interested in going into these questions further.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Oh, I don’t reject the idea that BDSM should be subject to RF analysis, Charles, it’s just that I’ve found some discussions on the subject difficult to participate or make any headway in. It seemed that the parameters were too restrictive, as I mentioned above. For another eggzample, when I suggested that as human social eccsperience in general involves relationships to power from different perspectives, and one way to take power over that fact itself, and the uncertainty that surrounds it - to incorporate it and deal with it - is to ‘play’ with it, the avenue was cut off before any furthur eccsploration by an accusation that it is patriachal thinking to suggest the inevitability of ‘power’, or ‘power over’ in the first place. Radical feminism wants to create a different reality. I’m thinking, well, ok, but don’t we have to start from where we are now? Can’t we at least eggzamine the question of actual harm vs healthy and harmless processing of a current and just possibly, though maybe not inevitably permanent reality of life? And who knows what other thoughts people might have…?
Anyway, you get the idea. It was a slippery eel of a conversation and I think people just got frustrated. I know I did. But, yes, I would be happy to go into these questionss furthur in this forum. Judging by what I’ve seen so far I think this would be a good place to respectfully hear different views and opinions.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 6th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
Myca, you are essentially correct. I’m a switch to an extent, but I’m really a bottom, and specifically a submissive. In fact, I would top less, but my wife* also likes to bottom, and specifically requests that I do my fair share of topping.
Cicely, this resonated with me:
I agree with Charles that we ought not to just rule out examination of our sexuality. However, if the conversation starts with, “why are you doing what you’re doing when it’s wrong?” there is no room for dialog.
Cicely, I think you’re right that simply declaring that we’re trying to do away with all power differentials ignores the need to deal with the conditions we live with now. (Nobody but the French government thinks, for example, that the way to deal with racism is to refuse to talk about race). I think that, within a context where people can speak openly about power (and especially where the power imbalance is a temporary, artificial environment), having the power dynamic out in the open is a good thing. What’s more insidious; the open, consensual, temporary arrangement between my wife and I in a scene; or the long-term nonconsensual power struggles that go on among people in the workplace?
If the conversation starts with, “what do you get out of that and why is it erotic/intimate for you?” then there is plenty of room for examination and discussion. With some people, there’s room to discuss, and with some people there’s just no common ground.
I’m confident we have other folks from the BDSM community on this blog, too. We’re either the most vocal, or the ones that realize this issue has arisen on the thread. If Amp moves this to a separate thread, I think we’ll see a bunch of folks flying the flag.
*Every time I use this word, I’m aware of the privilege I have. That’s another thread, or more precisely, several threads on this blog.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 3:32 am
When I brought this subject up in the “Is the oppression of women the original oppression?’ thread, it was in the conteccst of how the assertion, or similar , can have the effect of closing down or re-directing discussion on a given subject. Feeling no need to disassociate myself from BDSM, but I think I should say, in the interests of accuracy, that I’m not (yet?) a practioner of it myself. I would definitely describe my seccsuality as being within a range of d/s relating however, and I do think the discussion here might be more fruitful if we look at a spectrum of d/s seccsual relating - in relation to patriarchy.It would include many more of us, I feel sure… and possibly reduce the potential for polarisation…?
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Yes, certainly.
To my mind, the traditional romantic-sexual model is also solidly within the range of d/s relating. Both the pursuer-pursued aspect and the supplicant-grantor dynamics seem to me to be about the eroticization of power dynamics.
The following is a brief description of my orientation and a very vague description of my sexual practice. I am somewhat cofortable with people knowing this about me, and figure it is necessary to make clear what position I speak from. I’ve tried to put this info behind a cut, in case some people would prefer to avoid reading it, but I don’t know if my minimal css skills are sufficient to the task.
I speak from the position of a male, predominantly heterosexual, sadist (and sometimes switch). Ideologically, I strongly favor egalitarian sex (which is not the same thing as vanilla sex), but my sexual orientation is not purely egalitarian. By chance or not, my wife is also a pervert (strongly switch) who ideologically strongly favors egalitarian sex. Neither of us was a BDSM practitioner before we became involved with each other, and we came out to each other gradually, predominantly through reading the usenet board alt.sex.bondage together. More detail than that I’d prefer not to give.
One of the advantages that I see in explicit BDSM practice is that it localizes the eroticization of power dynamics (of power-over, violence and pain) in a specific set of agreed upon activities, and also helps to distinguish and seperate those who significantly eroticize power dynamics, and those who don’t. Both of these steps are useful, as the implicit and generalized eroticization of power dynamics is something that I see as being frequently malign and damaging. Many of the warning signs of abusers seem to me to be hidden in part by an acceptance of unspoken eroticization of power dynamics. If someone having control over you is sexy, then you are less likely to notice and object when someone is taking control over your life.
Even without rising to the level of blatant abuse, I think that eroticizing power dynamics without developing a coherent and explicit BDSM framework (safe-sane-consensual) leads in bad directions sexually and interpersonally. Eroticizing actual power dynamics leads to a tolerance for power dynamics, and to an interest in seeking out the potential power dynamics contained within a given situation.
However, while BDSM practice may be useful in creating temporary, consensual sham power dynamics to erotically enjoy, and may therefore help to free one from pursuing actual, long-term, non-consensual power dynamics, there is no gaurantee that this second part will be the case.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I’d be interested to see what our resident radical feminists make of the topic.
I like the way Charles phrases this:
Even without rising to the level of blatant abuse, I think that eroticizing power dynamics without developing a coherent and explicit BDSM framework (safe-sane-consensual) leads in bad directions sexually and interpersonally. Eroticizing actual power dynamics leads to a tolerance for power dynamics, and to an interest in seeking out the potential power dynamics contained within a given situation.[emphasis mine]
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am
One thing I’ve noticed about the eroticizing of male dominance is when you read a lot of anti-choice literature (and even laws), you get the strong impression that for a lot of anti-choice men there is a sadistic need for pregnancy to exist as a way for them to mark their property–that having a woman pregnant by you and go through that suffering is the pseudo-righteous version of what more enlightened folks get out of their system by playing around with leashes and other forms of bondage. But they don’t have an outlet for these urges and so instead of making it a “sadism gets me off, so let’s get that out of my system in a safe, consensual enviroment”, they project their desires onto everyone else and demand that the law force conformity.
Which is a long, roundabout way of saying that so-called vanilla sex roles can and often do have a sado-masochistic element to them. (Hyper-religious Christians who clearly get an erotic buzz off the process of keeping the wife perpetually pregnant is the first thing that comes to mind.) But because the people who are deeply into eroticized gendered power differientials slap a thick coat of moral self-righteousness onto their practices, there’s no way to contain or even discuss what is feeding into it. BDSM, however–and this is talking to people who are into it, which I’m not, so tell me if I’m off-base–makes power plays a sexual game, which leaves the option of containment.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Amanda -I think it’s likely to be be true that there are all sorts of ways to disguise sado-masochistic elements in relationships - even not acknowledge them to yourself. In contrast BDSM is very deliberate and obvious (as well as contained). Honesty and trust would both seem to be essential.
Yes. Truth be told I wonder what we’re left with if we take power dynamics right out of the equation. So Charles, when you say that ideologically you favour egalitarian seccs - what does that atually mean? Can you describe it? And then, why do you favour it?
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 11:10 am
cicely, this is driving me nuts and i just have to ask. why don’t you like the letter “x”?
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Amanda, I’d argue that for most of those people, it’s not that they have no outlet for sadistic/dominant feelings that might otherwise be expressed in a healthy manner through consensual BDSM. It’s nonconsensual power and control that they crave.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
What mythago said. The consensual part is essential to BDSM as I and the people I’ll have anything to do with practice it; we get off because of that, not despite it. It’s a package dynamic.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
…That sounded wrong. I’m not saying that there are a bunch of would-be rapists running around play parties and such, and I’m _also_ not saying that bdsm communities are immune from people like that. I meant to say that I can only speak anecdotally, but from everything I’ve seen, it’s not like the negotiation and the boundary talks are safeguards, exactly. They can’t be extricated from the interaction itself.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Cicely,
Egalitarian sexual practice is characterized by a conscious rejection of eroticization of power dynamics but shares with good BDSM the recognition of the importance of verbal communication and repeatedly checking in with your partner. Ideally, the dynamics of communication between equals are eroticized. The oft mocked practice of repeatedly checking in with you sexual partner to see if they are enjoying whatever is going on currently and to see if they’d enjoy it if you did something more is (If done well) the eroticization of active consent. Obviously, the safe-sane-consensual ideal somewhat eroticizes active consent, but also eroticizes power dynamics and the semblance of non-consent.
If going out on a date with someone new is hot because either you or your partner is courting, and your partner or you is probably going to “give in” and have sex later, then, even though the sex is vanilla, I think the actual d/s dynamics of the situation are eroticized. If such a date would feel gross and weird, and you’d be happier and hotter if your mutual potential sexual interest had been clearly (preferably verbally) established then the d/s dynamics of the situation have been defused, and the egalitarian dynamics have been eroticized.
If you are a BDSM practicioner, and you like playing around the edge of your established limits, so that a significant part of the experience is the fear that your partner will cross the line (intentionally, accidentally, or ‘accidentally’), then you are probably eroticizing the actual d/s dynamics. If you would only play near the edge with someone you are absolutely confident would never cross that line, or if you would never play near the edge at all, if it gets less hot the closer it gets to the edge, rather than more hot, then you are probably not eroticizing the actual power dynamics.
While safe-sane-consensual is the BDSM ideal, I think a lot of BDSM practice, particularly outside of play communities in isolated bedrooms, actually involves a lot of eroticization of actual power dynamics, and are just as ripe for abuse as vanilla sex, if not more so. Beating someone with a stick requires only a little ambiguity of desire on the part of that someone before it is abuse. If you have sex with your partner because you’d like to be kind to them, but aren’t hugely into it yourself, that is less than perfect. If you let them beat you to be kind to them, that easily becomes abusive (I think topping out of kindness or fairness is usually less bad, but could still be bad if your partners likes are actually upsetting to you).
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
OK, this is neither as intellectual nor as subtle as previous posts, but I’ve always thought that the rape fantasy (and the “oops, I’m tied up and helpless” fantasy) was really a version of Br’er Rabbit in the briar patch. “Oooh, please Br’er Fox, don’t throw me in the briar patch.” When, of course, that is exactly where Br’er Rabbit wants to be.
In other words, it is sex without responsibility or guilt–like somebody tying up the poor victims to force chocolate cake on ‘em.
This comment was written by Barb.Report this comment to the moderators
January 7th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
The initial discussion in the post reminds me of some reading I’ve done with regard to the corporal punishment of children. One frequent unintended consequence of spanking children is that the child will eroticize the violence done to them (partly I guess due to the fact that physical act of spanking actually stimulates the child’s sexual organs, and partly due to the psychological response of a child to the confusing and overwhelming fact that someone they love is violating them physically). I have read testimonials in which people who were spanked as children argue that their parents essentially inflicted a sexual kink on them that they fervently wish they didn’t have. See more at this site..
Obviously, I realize that not all spanked children are affected this way. I also realize that this dynamic is not at play for all members of the BDSM community. But I find it interesting that at least some people experience their BDSM sexuality as yet one more way in which they have been victimized. For these particular individuals, it’s almost as though the parents who abused them continue to exercise their power over them and there is no way to escape it.
This comment was written by The Happy Feminist.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 2:04 am
Beth - The letter ‘eccs’ isn’t working on my keyboard. I’ll have to keep saying this in all my posts so I don’t drive folks crazy - sorry about that! I can’t get a new keyboard immediately - but will ASAP…
Charles - I get the good communication part. Would that suffice as a rejection of power dynamics, I wonder. Aren’t there power dynamics at work in the process of just seduction, even prior to seccs itself? I suppose I’m asking generally - ‘what is arousal made of?’ Or, how does anything become eroticised? If you eccstract conquest and/or surrender from a seccsual eccschange, what are you left with? Say even at the level of someone being attracted to someone, but thinking that for one reason or another these feelings should not be acted upon. If they then do act on them, they might consider this as a kind of surrender. Particularly if the other party has been actively attempting to seduce them. They surrender to both the feelings and the person, and there is pleasure in the surrendering of control. There may also have been pleasure in the attempt to stay ‘in’ control. It’s been said before that the most active human seccs organ is the brain. How does one change what goes on in the mind to eliminate power dynamics altogether, and still eccsperience arousal?
I’m interested in eccsploring this first, and then moving into the relationship between seccsual desire and eccspresion and power dynamics in the otherwise material world. I find the fact that the place one is most likely to find ‘powerless’ men, is in BDSM circles, very interesting. What can we make of that in terms of ‘connection’ to patriarchal society, or not, of seccsuality.
Barb - I think this too. And that responsibility and guilt free seccs is something that’s good for humans, as a pleasurable and positive relief or release from the stresses and pressures of life. We can get ‘lost’ in it, and no-one is hurt by it. Seccs does actually funtion that way in the Bonobo (pygmy chimp) society. They have a lot of it. Though I guess that would be without the element of fantasy.
I feel that between the religiously inspired repression of seccsuality, as a means of control, and the feminist opposition to it (or particular aspects of it) as a means of revolution, (and I think these two things overlap - even sub-consiously), there hasn’t been any space to consider seccs openly and without shame.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 5:10 am
cicely,
You can (and I am also prone to doing so) read every human interaction as a relationship of power dynamics. You seem to read it as conquest and surrender, I tend to read it as applications of force (the difference is perhaps subtle and hard to tease out, so I’ll leave it at that unless you are interested in pursuing that distinction). I’d like to go through a few key comments of yours, and see if I can spin off of them a better description of what I mean by egalitarian erotics, and how they differ from vanilla erotics. I agree that vanilla erotics are packed full of d/s (with much less b&d or s-m), but I think there are several other ways of doing things.
Good communication is critical, and it is part of the rejection of the actual power dynamics, but it is not the same as rejection of the eroticization of power dynamics. If you find seeing things as conquest and surrender as a turn on, then you are eroticizing power dynamics, even if you communicate the fact that that is what you find hot, and that that is what you want to have in your relationships.
If you say to your partner, “I’d like you to take me out and seduce me, so we can have really hot sex later,” you are using good honest communication of your desires, but you are using it to establish that you’d like to do some d/s sex. Doing d/s sex that way is certainly far better (in my opinion) than acting distant so your partner decides they really need to turn on the charm and takes you out to seduce you, and you end the night having hot sex.
The first eroticizes power relations, but the second intentionally constructs real and destructive power relations so that they can be eroticized.
Does that make sense?
Here is what seduction means to me. Seduction is a specific method of initiating sexual interactions, or more broadly a specific way of imagining the initiation of sexual interactions, and it is certainly drenched in actual d/s power relations. It is also usually based in intentionally very poor communication. Seduction seems to me to be based on the idea that neither participant should ever admit that they are interested in having sex until they are actually having sex. The seducer caries out a long series of moves to position their victim so that they will simply fall into having sex, and the victim pretends that they aren’t interested and often that they don’t even realize what is going on, while simultaneously signaling that they are interested and that the seducer should continue positioning them. It seems like it would be hard to do that (without prior negotiation) while maintaining good communication.
Let me describe an alternative method. Telling someone that you are attracted to them (or even having an intermediary tell them that you are attracted to them) is not a technique of seduction. Responding by saying, “Yeah, I’m attracted to you too, want to head back to my place after this?” or “I’m attracted to you to, but I’d like to get to know you better, want to go out for coffee after this?” are not techniques of seduction, but they are techniques of initiating sexual interactions. If you exclusively eroticize d/s relations, then initiating sex like that (either as first or second speaker) is not sexy, and maybe doesn’t even work as a way to initiate sex. If you eroticize egalitarian relationships and communication, then an initiation like that can be exciting (”Wow,” you think, “she feels comfortable enough with me to ask if I’m attracted to her, that’s really hot!”).
Does that make sense?
Here’s the list that leaps immediately to my mind:
The sharing of intimacy, physical pleasure, trust, the experience of making oneself vulnerable and not being harmed (that one is crossing closer to d/s territory), the release of tension, validation as a desirable and complete person (that one is kinda creepy).
Oh, also, if you actually remove the aspect of conquest and surrender from the interaction, you may also gain the following:
The lack of stress and fear, the pleasure at creating a momentary island where everything isn’t seen in terms of power-over, the feeling that you are part of a radical transformation of sexuality into something that is no longer a weapon. :)
Does that make the idea of egalitarian eroticism make more sense?
That’s a hard one! :)
The scenario you describe as erotic reads to me as one of rejection and seduction and self-hating surrender (taking pleasure in ones failure to stay in control, taking pleasure in doing what one thinks is wrong has an aspect to my mind of exquisite self-hatred, an aspect that I understand). To you, this is an erotic scenario, with multiple aspects of conquest and surrender building the pleasure. To someone who hates being pestered, who hates loosing, who hates being put in a position where loosing and winning are the stakes, nothing in there looks erotic or exciting. In that sort of situation, their goals would be to ensure that the seducer loses, not to have the situation lead to hot sex.
What leads to people to see the same situation so differently, so that one person finds that hot, while the other is repulsed? Personal history? Cultural training? Patriarchy?
Well, for me, the answer to that is that I find that I mostly can’t stop seeing and eroticizing power dynamics, and that is my argument in defense of BDSM. Strip the actual power dynamics out of the situation so that the interaction can be based in equality and communication and mutuality, and restrict the eroticized power dynamics to artificial, negotiated, temporary constructs, where they still have sexual power, but where they no longer have real world power to injure. Actual power dynamics (of power-over, violence, and pain) seem contrary to healthy human relationships, in my experience.
At the same time, I think most people only marginally eroticize power dynamics, and I think that they are better off de-training that association, and emphasizing other aspects of sex and life that they find erotic.
Even for people who eroticize power dynamics, I think it is essential to learn to eroticize communication and equality and mutuality. I think sex needs to contain those things to be healthy, and I think one is better off eroticizing things that are necessary for healthy sex, rather than begrudging them. The question then is how to do that.
Lastly,
For me, feminism is the framework that creates that space for considering sex openly (and honestly) and without shame. And the framework for creating a sexuality without shame.
To me, seduction, traditional dating (boy with money + girl + dinner = girl gives boy sex), and most of the other mechanics of mainstream vanilla sexuality - the entire institution of romance - is a patriarchal blight that requires overthrowing in order to get to a sexuality without shame. But that requires a lot more explanation, and this is already a very long post, so I’ll leave it there for now.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 6:40 am
now it’s taking place in the “root of all oppression” thread). So here are a couple of posts, to get this thread started; and then I’ll copy over a bunch of the comments, where appropriate. Myca […] Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted12:22 am at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 7:40 am
A few years ago, I was on a mailing list for people who were into female domination. One thing that I find disconcerting now I look back on it is how much emphasis there was on “forced feminisation” - making the submissive wear high heels and walk like a woman, calling him by feminine names, penetrating him. Disconcerting because it seems to reinforce the idea that female=submissive more than a submissive woman could ever do. These guys wanted to be humiliated and they associated being made female with humiliation.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I have always thought that BDSM has the potential to be fundamentally a very democratic thing. I can think of very few other contexts where power dynamics are explicitly negotiated so that the needs and desires of both partners are met, regardless of gender, race, age, class, ability, body size, and so on (although of course these are always factors in the exchange and it’s impossible to know how/the extent to which they shape our desires).
This comment was written by dorktastic.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 10:30 am
In other words, it is sex without responsibility or guilt
Barbara, that’s kind of the pop-psych version but I don’t think it’s true of many (or perhaps even most). I know for many people it’s a way to play with issues of power and control without actual danger–a real rapist doesn’t care about physical damage or about stopping if you need things to stop.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 11:01 am
I might not be being as precise with the words I choose as I need to be but I hope my whole or general meaning will come across.
This does make sense.
I haven’t made this clear, but, yes, I understand that intimacy and tenderness and all the other rewarding non-d/s aspects can be present, both during d/s relating and before or after it. I guess to be more specific though I would say that individuals often have seccsual preferences or boundaries which mean that they fall somwhere on a spectrum d to s, and are never comfortable crossing that line. So they would think of themselves as more or less dominant, or more or less submissive in some specific ways, without being necessarily inolved in BDSM. So, when I ask ‘what are we left with if we remove the power dynamic altogether?’, it’s this kind of thing I’m thinking of too. Egalitarian seccs, to some, has meant ‘you do me, then I’ll do you - 50/50.’ Which is not an eccsiting or even comfortable proposition for a lot of people, myself included.
I can understand that but feminism, particularly radical feminism and lesbian-feminism, has been very problematic also in the area of seccuality, and actually ‘created’ shame. I am a survivor of the infamous ‘Lesbian Sex Wars’ (my ‘eccs’ worked! but not twice….) and could talk your ear off about that, but I’m most interested here in finding out peoples views on what the connection actually is between the real world oppression and abuse of women, and patriarchy in general, and consensual d/s seccsual relating, from mild through to BDSM.
I wonder what people think seccs would be or look like in an ideal world. I wonder what people think the ‘meaning’, ‘purpose’ or ‘usefulness’ of seccs is - for the individual perhaps as opposed to those things for ’society’.
Yes, Nick, just like in the male prison system. Just like in a school playground. Just like in the world. That’s a ‘view’. A core patriarchal value, even. Whatever ‘thing’ that would be recognised as related to women that attaches to a boy or a man makes him less of a boy or man and more one of the despised and ‘othered’ group - girls and women. No surprises there. But when it becomes impossible to say that women, as a group, have less power in the real world than men as a group, when young boys are aspiring to feats and achievements more equally divided between adult men and women, in all fields of endeavour, it will beome much more difficult to ‘other’ or to apportion dominance and submision in that way too. A crucial thing to deal with is male on female violence, of course, but I’m not convinced that consensual d/s seccs between individuals is an appropriate target in that battle.
This comment was written by cicely.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I have to agree with mythago that the analysis of rape fantasy above is at best pop-pysch. It may be true of some, but not nearly all.
I have a shame free sex life, and I do have rape fantasies and worse, fantasies involving castration, beating, you name it. Much of it doesn’t even involve me as a character. None of it do I want to come true, and in fact the outrageous unreality of it is part of the allure. Every so often, I read a news story about something I fantasized about and that kills the fantasy forever. It doesn’t mean that I need the helpless element in order to give myself permission to orgasm which seems to be what your analysis is saying about rape fantasies.
It may be that a rape fantasy no matter how realistic in detail has its power from the deep down feeling that this could never really happen. I don’t know why the flush of humiliation in a fantasy may cause a corresponding erotic rush in the one having the fantasy, only it sometimes does. I think many fantasies are just stories that work to bring one closer to orgasm and don’t need to make sense or represent anything more complex. For all we know, it means that the bits of the brain that house these images is just close enough the the part that causes arousal to stimulate it, and that is just coincidental.
I think looking at rape and male on female violence as a method of societal control would be a lot more fruitful than looking at consensual d/s sex.
This comment was written by lee.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I agree with some of your points Bean (the term sex-positive drives me nuts anyway). But I think one of the problems is that we’re talking about a topic where one group has far more knowledge and information than the other.
For instance, Happy Feminist’s argument about the connection between childhood punishments is hotly argued, and usually rejected, among spanking communities that I’ve known. Likewise Barb’s analysis is, at best, simplistic. I’m not sure what useful analysis is going to come from a discussion which has to start at the level of basic misconceptions (although getting rid of those misconceptions is always useful, of course).
Something else bothers me about this as well, and that’s the idea that kinky people need to meet non-kinky people on equal footing, to discuss and define their experience. I’m not sure that I’d accept that process for analysis anywhere else.
The idea that people into BDSM, and radical feminists, are two sides that have a view on BDSM sexuality disturbs me. Not least because it imples that those who are into BDSM are, by definition, not radical feminists
I believe that a feminist analysis of BDSM is useful, but I’m not convinced that it can’t be done by practitioners of BDSM, and still less that they need to meet another ’side’.
This comment was written by More Anonymity than I usually require.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
I think that all the talk about “Good D/S” is an interesting way to conceal the way in which the vast majority of BDSM is “Bad D/S”. In particular, the way that, as Nick put it, “submission” and “femaleness” are so tightly bound (heh) together. The way that female dominants are scarcer than hen’s teeth.
BDSM apologists disclaim any violence done by BDSM practioners by asserting that those people — the ones doing violence in the name of BDSM — aren’t doing real BDSM, they are doing something else.
I went looking for stories of BDSM survivors — people who been in the scene and managed to get out. What I found, instead, was a description of the problem, how dominants came / come to believe that being a dominant is a free pass to abuse others –
Submissives Need To Take A Stand On Abuse
If a dominant has entered BDSM to get their “free pass”, and they’ve found a submissive who doesn’t have that self-respect, then what? Then the apologists come and tell us that “Real BDSM” involves dominants who are respectful and submisives who have self-esteem?
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
There is no “real” BDSM in that sense, any more than there is “real” vanilla sex, “real” marriage, or “real” transsexuality. The point people who practice BDSM with safeguards and evolving consent are making is that BDSM is not incompatible with either of the above, and that there are in fact BDSM communities who consider them absolutely necessary.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Gosh, I dunno, maybe the person who doesn’t believe they have any right to refuse abuse gets abused? That’s what happens in non-BDSM relationships, right?
The “apologists” are the people working to prevent this kind of situation by enforcing standards for self-respect. They’re the people writing about what is and is not abuse. They’re the people working to inform dominants that there is no free pass, and to inform submissives that they have as much right to bodily sovreignity as they did before they entered whatever club or playgroup or listserve.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Piny,
I think that my being able to find the article I quoted in the short time I found it (about 5 minutes), which is from a BDSM-positive writer, not some angry, sex-negative, pro-vanilla side-by-side-cuddling-only radical feminist says, to me, that there is a very real problem with non-consensual violence.
Futhermore, I think that the defensive posture taken by BDSM apologist serves to silence critique of the abuses which occur in the name of BDSM. That abuses occur in large numbers seems to be well understood outside the lifestyle. If you want to say that BDSM is incompatible with the things that lead to abuse, you’re free to do so. However, people are abusing in the name of BDSM and I don’t see that being addressed.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
(And so I’m very clear, because my snarky, sarcastic posting style may not be familiar to many of my readers on this blog, I’m not suggesting that radical feminsts really are “vanilla only, side-by-side, cuddling only, sex-negative” people, rather, I’m attempting to rebut what is a common assertion about people who object to BDSM because it seems to harm women a lot more than it harms men.)
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 8th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
And if you want to keep putting up those strawmen, you go right ahead.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 12:27 am
Piny,
I don’t think I’ve presented a strawman. You’re free to rebut my statement that abuse is common in BDSM communities by claiming it doesn’t occur, but claiming that abuse within the BDSM community doesn’t “count” because it goes against the principles of BDSM is intellectually dishonest. It would be like saying that Catholic priests don’t molest children because molestation is un-Catholic. Sure, it’s un-Catholic, but that doesn’t seem to stop it from happening.
Keep in mind — I’m not saying that someone who makes a fully-informed decision to be flogged, understands the physical risks, is able to manage those risks, and is being flogged by someone who respects the person being flogged’s boundaries, is being abused. That would be a strawman. Rather, I’m saying that if we accept the text of the article I referenced as “true”, there is a big problem. The article came from a website sympathetic to BDSM, and I’ve read the same thing elsewhere over the last 20-some years of my life, so I’m inclined to believe them.
Do you have a response other than “It doesn’t happen, because if it did it wouldn’t be BDSM”, because I’ve heard that response for 20-some years now and I’m still not buying it.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 1:48 am
There has been enough men sexually physically abusing women in my activist community for it to be a problem that is addressed, both in writing. In doing this they look at the problem specific to the activist community, and how the activist community can deal with it.
It doesn’t follow that the problem is the activism.
I have no doubt that there is abuse within BDSM communities, and that abusers operate differently based on the community they’re in (like they did in the activism movement).
The fact that people are acknowledging the problem is a pretty solid sign that something is going, there’s abuse in every community, and the most dangerous are the ones that don’t acknowledge it.
This comment was written by More Anonymity than I usually require.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 3:34 am
Short version.
FurryCatHearder, I think you are refighting old arguments even though no one here is arguing the other side of it. I think the discussion as a whole (and your contribution to it) would be a lot better off if you would engage the actual positions of the people you are arguing with here. I don’t mean to be dismissive, but I think you are arguing with ghosts.
Long version.
Piny writes:
and you reply dismissively:
But that isn’t the position Piny just articulated. Piny is arguing that there isn’t a monolithic BDSM, and that the advocates of safe-sane-consensual BDSM (the people you presumably mean by the apologists) are specifically the people who work to help BDSM practitioners and enthusiasts do BDSM within an egalitarian framework. Without the BDSM communities, without the apologists, there would still be plenty of people tying each other up and beating each other, plenty of people humiliating each other, all of it for the sexual thrill, but they would be doing it in isolation, and there would be (in my guess) even more abuse and violation involved.
People abuse in the name of BDSM, people abuse in the name of romance, people abuse in the name of love. Now, you might say that isn’t love, someone else (but not anyone here) might say that isn’t BDSM, and far too many people would say that isn’t romance (I think they are wrong on that one, I think the institution of romance is fundamentally an instrument of abuse, but I digress), but the important thing is to try to disentangle the one from the other. Safe-sane-consensual and the self-policing BDSM communities are specifically an attempt to separate the BDSM practice from the abuse it can be used for or involved in. Are they perfectly successful? Absolutely not.
You also said:
Is this my comments you are characterizing here? I can’t tell since you don’t quote anything anyone wrote.
Maybe I wasn’t clear in what I wrote before when I was talking about the difference between bad d/s that plays off of actual power dynamics, and non-malign d/s that uses temporary artificial power dynamics (did I actually ever call it good d/s, or are your quotes there scare quotes on a position you see implicit in what I wrote? Personally, when I start scare quoting someone else’s implicit position, I find that I have entered straw man territory. YMMV).
As ciceley and I agreed, open and honest communication is essential to non-fucked up relationships. Whether or not you are doing D/S scening, if you are not doing open and honest communication, you are in fucked up territory. I am not convinced that (lacking good egalitarian context) formal D/S is necessarily worse than informal D/S, but I’m not going to argue that it isn’t. No way in hell am I going to argue that it is better. I will argue that formal D/S scening within a framework of egalitarian communication and active consent is better than the other (D/S) options, as it has the least degree of bleed over of malign power dynamics into the rest of the relationship.
There is another related question (is BDSM better than, equal to, or worse than non-BDSM, given that both are done in a safe-sane-consensual, active consent manner, with egalitarian good communication) , which bean (indirectly) raised, so I’ll reply to it separately.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 4:21 am
bean,
I completely agree with your position in comment 22.
I feel that your post raises the question that I mentioned at the end of my reply to FurryCatHearder: is BDSM better, equal-to, or worse than non-BDSM sexuality. Actually, that is a crappy way of phrasing it, and much less productive and nuanced than the way you actually phrased it. Your point was much more complex than that, but I think I can say something useful with this simplified version, so here goes.
I think that BDSM sexuality, independent of any other criteria, is a more harmful sexuality than non-BDSM sexuality. Specifically, I think that an eroticization of mutuality is a better and healthier sexuality than an eroticization of power dynamics (power-over, powerlessness, violence and pain). Furthermore, while I can see other sources for an eroticization of power dynamics, I think the overwhelming source of the eroticization of power dynamics in this culture is patriarchy (actually, I think the triple alliance of sex oppression, class oppression and race oppression are heavily implicated, but sex oppression is most heavily implicated). I think that if you have, or are able to develop, a sexuality of mutuality, then you should value it highly. I think taking up BDSM practice because it is cool is a bad mistake if you have or are capable of developing a truly mutual sexuality. I think in the ideal world, there would be no eroticization of power dynamics, and no BDSM sexuality. I think in a moderately ideal world (one where people still suffer through a childhood of relative powerlessness (but not abuse), where people still suffer from painful diseases, where people still fear death and loss, but where sex, class, and race oppression is banished) that eroticization of power dynamics would be far more rare.
I think that the best safe-sane-consensual, active-consent, egalitarian-based BDSM sexuality is still a product of a sick culture, and I think anything less than that ideal is probably harmful to its participants.
That said, I think safe-sane-consensual BDSM practice is vastly better than the current alternative. If I eroticize power dynamics, I am going to play with them for sexual gratification. If I deny this desire, all I end up doing is pushing it underground. I’m still going to play those games, I’m just going to lie to myself and my partner and pretend that’s not what I’m doing. As a result, I’m going to have to play with the real thing, rather than being able to play with the fake thing. If I want a D/S experience, I will have to actually dominate or submit to someone. If I want a S/M experience, I will have to actually torture someone, or find someone to torture me (D/S is much more common in this culture, I think, but there are way too many sadists too, coming up with some excuse to inflict pain).
To my mind, this is what most people in this culture do. Most of them aren’t extreme in their practice, but I see the basic cultural construct of romance as implicit D/S, and I think most people who do romance do it in large part because they eroticize D/S.
I had a friend long ago who explained to me that it offended her that her boyfriend (a better friend of mine) explicitly refused to be possessive, and while he was perfectly happy to be faithful if that was her preference, refused to request that she be monogamous. She explained to me that she actually usually cheated on her boyfriends, but that a non-possessive boyfriend was both insulting and meant that the cheating sex wouldn’t be nearly as a hot. While she was impressively honest, I really don’t believe her desires were at all strange for this culture.
To my mind, she would have been better off if she hadn’t found betrayal and being a possession hot, but I think those structures of desire are hard to reconstruct. If she wasn’t able to reconstruct them, I think she would have been much better off accepting those desires as hers, accepting them as malign, and finding ways to funnel and restrict them, so that she could extract their hotness without getting as badly burned (and without burning her boyfriend). I think that safe-sane-consensual BDSM is a way of doing that.
I have met (to a little extent, I have been one) BDSM supremacists, who believe that BDSM sexuality is more honest than non-BDSM sexuality, because everyone’s sexuality is actually an eroticization of power dynamics. I think they have a point (I think most people in this culture do eroticize power to some degree), but I think they are basically wrong. I think honest egalitarian sexuality, for those who can reach it, is better than power dynamics sexuality. But I think safe-sane-consensual BDSM practice is a better, less harmful expression of eroticizing power dynamics than either non-SSC BDSM or implicit BDSM. And, for those who strongly eroticize power dynamics, I think that SSC BDSM may be either a useful end point, or a useful way point on the way to an egalitarian eroticization of mutuality.
This last point is one that both Thomas and mythago have expressed here and previously. Good SSC BDSM culture emphasizes the critical point that active consent and communication are themselves hot, and that sex that moves away from both of those is bad sex, and is not at all hot. When BDSM practitioners reach the point where they eroticize active consent and communication, they are actually moving into an egalitarian sexuality.
I’m going on way too long, so I’ll stop.
This comment was written by Charles.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Bondage and Patriarchy
This comment was written by ThinkNaughty.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 7:39 am
And that right there is your strawman, because that’s not what I’m saying.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Nick, what you raise is exactly the sort of thing that the BDSM community (such as it is) ought to be willing to talk about without getting defensive. Basically, I agree with you, but I want to parse the dynamic a little because I think it’s more complicated than it looks at first blush.
I think a large portion of the forced feminization (FF) dynamic is simply misogynist. However, you lump in penetration with female clothes and names. I’m sure you recognize that receptive anal sex is very different from feminization, though it may be bundled with it in some folks’ fantasies. Gay men all over the world (and straight and bi men, straight, lesbian and bi women and other folks) like receptive anal sex just because it feels good.
Also, there are kinds of FF fantasies that are not about replicating, but rather about commenting on, the subordination of women. I have done a lot of thinking about this because, although FF isn’t really something I’ve done, I have had fantasies about it. (I apologize for going on, but this requires backstory.) When that started, about ten years ago, I was very distressed because my first reaction was that deep down I bought the patriarchal sex roles that I had been fighting. I talked it though with some friends who knew my kinks and my worldview, and I realized that it was a part of something else. Much of what I do as a bottom involves humiliation and violation of social norms such as rules of cleanliness and social roles. When I was in my teens and early twenties, I wasn’t willing to deal with those issues, and preferred bondage and painplay — the more macho, the better. I realized after the fact that I was really putting myself in a position to tell myself that BDSM was, for me, an extreme sport. It was an adrenaline rush, but it wasn’t something that called my privileged position into question. As I got more comfortable with my partners and myself, I found that I became more submissive and less a straight pain bottom. That was also a period when I was becoming very publicly an “out” leatherperson. Now, athletic young guys in leather uniform look like a caricature of machismo, and that provides a lot of protection against the ridicule that kinky folks are sometimes subject to. A guy in a motorcycle jacket and engineer’s boots with a flogger may be disliked, but he’s generally not the but of a joke.
Here’s where the FF comes in. A guy in women’s clothing is, in popular culture, the butt of a joke. That was true in “some like it hot” and when Milton Berle did it, and it was still true when Rudy Giuliani did it. All the more so when that man is doing it for sexual gratification — he’s not just a disagreeable kind of pervert; he’s the kind of pervert people laugh at.
I find that I get aroused walking around with a completely shaved pubic area, because that’s also adopting a visual symbol of the kind of kink that people ridicule. Same thing wiht drinking piss — the sort of thing that people laugh at. When I have the occasional FF fantasy, it isn’t about trying to be a woman, or having a woman’s experience (as a man in this culture, that’s something I can’t really ever have). I think about the violation of the social norm about crossdressing; being the guy who puts on women’s underwear for sexual gratification.
In my view, that’s a very different dynamic. The difference is so great, in fact, that I think a few minutes of dealing with a guy about FF fantasies ought to make it clear what they’re about.
I don’t think that’s the norm, BTW. As I said, I think there’s plenty of unenlightened misogyny in the BDSM community.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 9:13 am
FCH, there are lots of people doing BDSM out there who do not belong to BDSM organizations or network with other folks to participate in a community, and they may not even particularly think about what it is they are doing. They have internalized lots of the patriarchal culture, and their attitudes are going to mirror the general population to a large degree. They don’t become instantly enlightened by picking up a flogger. It is no surprise to me that there are people doing BDSM who are doing things that horrify me.
However, for those of us that do participate in a larger community and/or think about BDSM as it relates to the world outside our bedrooms, we’re very aware of power dynamics. See, e.g., Charles. So we’ve got fairly sensitive antennae for abuse in the community. I don’t think that this means that BDSMers are overrepresented among abusers, just that most of the world feels little need to speak out against abuse but we do.
Sure, BDSM attracts it’s share of psychos and abusers, but the folks you call “apologists” (a term that pretty much stakes out your position — of all the things I’ll apologize for in my life, BDSM is not one) are the ones trying to stop abuse within our corner of the world, by telling people how to spot it, telling abusers they have no right to abuse, and telling victims they have a right not to be abused. There are plenty of feminist women doing this for the general population, but what men do you see speaking out against abuse in the general population? Other than a few feminist and pro-feminist men’s groups, who? Promise Keepers?
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 9:21 am
Bean, I agree entirely. If either side refuses to listen, there’s no conversation to be had. I’m willing to think about what it is that I do, and self-evaluate as honestly as I can. But I can only do that with people who are not driven by an unspoken and unshakable conviction that BDSM is “icky.”
Some folks above have taken issue with the term “sex-negative.” I’ve said before that I think it’s unfair to use that to refer to anti-porn feminists. Opposing porn is not the same as opposing sex. It’s also not necessarily the case that folks who oppose BDSM are sex-negative. However, I do think the term has a meaning outside of unfair insults. There is such a thing as sex-negative. There are folks who think sex is in and of itself sort of bad, and ought to be confined in narrow boundaries. We all know some finger-wagging moralist who looks askance at pleasures of the flesh first and thinks up a reason to disapprove later. Opposition to BDSM is not necessarily sex-negative, but some folks who oppose BDSM are sex-negative.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Charles, I’m not sure you’re right. On my account, power imbalance is not inherently bad, and in fact is a part of all human interaction; and it’s only when the power imbalances become sustained inequalities that they begin to turn into oppressive systems that pervade society and persist across generations.
In my view, some folks are probably going to find temporary, erotic power exchange intimate and exciting even in a world that is so much more egalitarian that we wouldn’t recognize it. I’m not sure there’s a sample group to look at to test either hypothesis, though.
I think the argument that BDSM is inherently better sex can easily be overstated, but I do think that on balance a community that promotes explicit negotiation and open communication is probably having better sex than the general population. And, as I said, I don’t think that all eroticization of power exchange is eroticization of oppressive power structures.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Thomas,
I understand the arguments, and have participated in the arguments many times over the years.
For me it comes down to the way in which what I think is presented as “good BDSM” creates space for “bad BDSM” and the ways in which apologists make statements about how BDSM communities are policed, without addressing how there is no official “BDSM Policing Agency” to make sure “bad BDSM” isn’t practiced. The problems with BDSM have been known for as long as I’ve known about BDSM (about 25 years — I’m 40-something these days) and I’ve seen no evidence that “bad BDSM” is declining, or that the “good BDSM” folks are making progress within their own community, as evidenced by that article I referenced earlier.
Perhaps a large part of the problem is that many forms of BDSM are illegal in most juridictions, so there’s no way for BDSM communities to create public service announcements reminding everyone to be “safe, sane and consensual” and report violators to some sort of community policing board. I know that none of the four women who wanted to tie me up ever discussed “safe words”, and the one who convinced me that I’d “enjoy” being tied up engaged in behavior that’s “officially” considered to be inappropriate. So, yes, I have my biases.
As regards eroticization of power exchanges, I think that BDSM is great in theory, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired. The model I’ve seen continues to primarily be about masculine people dominating feminine people, which is what patriarchy is all about. Even the practice of “forced feminization” without a corresponding “forced masculinization” is highly suspicious to me. The notion that one can be a feminist and embrace creating more of the same is something I struggle with a lot. Perhaps if we were living in the post-patriarchy there might be room for The Society for Anachronistic Sex, but we’re not living in the post-patriarchy. Nor are we living in a world in which the overwhelming majority of men view women as being fully-equal human beings.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
FCH, I want to respond to several things you said:
In practice, it depends where you are. I can cite New York law for the proposition that painplay is illegal, but I can also tell you that activists have done awareness programs for law enforcement here. People can and do report criminal acts in a BSDM scene, and I’m aware of at least one prosecution of an abusive top. As for public service announcements, that is essentially what the community tries to do with groups like The Eulenspeigel Society and others. Sure, we can all fill in our favorite complaint about the politics of activist organizations in any political or cultural group, but they’re doing what you say the community isn’t doing: reaching out to the folks in the hinterlands. There are similar groups on campuses across America, where we’re no persecuted. There are workshops and conferences across the country, and even if you like in Provo, Utah, bookseller will ship you books about how to do safe, sane, consensual BDSM.
In practice, there are places where prosecution is a real danger for BDSM practitioners. In places like that, people can’t report abuse in a scene. If the BDSM community was not persecuted by patriarchal authorities, this would not be the case.
Actually, the article you referenced earlier was (1) an anecdotal personal meditation; and (2) was as much concerned with lack of technical skills (such as a top who doesn’t know better hitting kidneys) as with abuse. The article was not really evidence of anything. I asked you before if you had any evidence that BDSMers are overrepresented in abuse, and you’ve shown none. Got any?
I do agree in part with the article, especially how it starts: well before my time, the leather community was a tight subculture where people lived by their reputation and knew each other’s play styles. That’s been lost in a world where folks can find partners more impersonally. The mentoring function of the community has to adapt to that. That’s what the people you call “apologists” are doing.
The model you’ve seen is a small part of the universe I see. Male submissives and bottoms, gay, straight or bi, are not hard to find. Who is it that you think watches all those “fem-dom” videos? Buys all the cock-and-ball toys? There are discussion boards hosted by female professional dominants, and the participants are bunches and bunches of het male subs and bottoms. (I’m not trying to sidetrack the discussion into sex work, which I generally think is exploitive. I’m merely raising the issue to note that there are plenty of male subs.) Checking Craigslist for men seeking women with the keyword “submissive,” there’s no shortage online either.
There may be an imbalance in how BDSM is reflected in commercial porn and in mainstream media depictions — but that’s largely attributable to the same old patriarchal dynamics: the patriarchy likes women to be sex objects, and it’s easier to present a bottom as an object without agency. We did not ask the patriarchy to misrepresent us, it just does that.
As you may have noticed from my response to Nick, above, this part I agree with. The BDSM community is not free of misogyny; there are places where the patriarchy is replicated within it. I said above that there are some circumstances where I think FF is more complicated; but on the whole I agree with the obvious conclusion that it is usually just men buying into the patriarchally approved subordinate position of women. But whether a subculture is completely free of patriarchal tendencies and heirarchies cannot be the test — otherwise virtually no subculture passes. The test has to be whether the subculture is, on the whole, moving in the right direction or not. It seems to me that your conclusion is that BDSM is inherently moving in the wrong direction. You can of course draw whatever conclusion you like, but I see no evidence to support that one.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
FurryCatHerder - I’m a little confused. If BDSM had no abuse, no practitioners who ignored the “safe, sane…”, and all that, then everyone should be running out to do BDSM right now, because it would make that lifestyle far and away the best thing going in sexual dynamics.
Mind you, I’m speaking as someone who does not do BDSM, nor is ever likely to. My sex life is about as vanilla as it gets (my fantasies are my own).
But every kind of sexual relationship human beings have ever had, has been turned by someone into a means of abuse. That it happens in BDSM is not only not surprising, it would be downright shocking if it didn’t happen.
I am glad there are people working to get rid of the abuse, just like I’m glad there are DV hotlines and shelters. But unless the rates of abuse in BDSM are significantly higher than in more vanilla relationships, I don’t see how BDSM itself is the problem.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
i am intrigued by the conflation of BDSM and sex that is happening here. while some people who are into BDSM are into it for the erotic aspects of BDSM practice, some have BDSM interactions/relationships that are not sexual, and in fact are based in something different entirely. i’m not sure what is meant by “BDSM sex,” and so i’m not sure if it’s useful to talk about BDSM vs. non-BDSM sex.
Also, let’s remember that the Top/Dom is not implicitly the one with more power in a D/s relationship, right?
i’m interested in Charles’ comments on egalitarian sexual relationships.
i think you’re suggesting that communicating your desires removes the ambiguity and potential for misuse/abuse/manipulation, which i am all in favor of. However, i would argue that the outcome of the second scenario might meet both partners’ needs just as well, if not better than the first. This thought process leads me to think about consent and what that means, as it is ESSENTIAL to everything that is being discussed here. Consent comes in many forms, and it’s not always verbal. I think, Charles, that what you are advocating is consistent consensual behavior, which is better practiced through verbal communication. I wonder what people think about this. It’s a tricky line, as one of the aspects of BDSM that is so attractive to me is that, in the way i have practiced, it’s not all verbally prenegotiated. my partner knows, though, if im consenting or not, and i might be consenting while i have tears dripping down my face, or i might be consenting while smiling. im not advocating that we all stop talking, im just pointing out that consent and/or revocation of consent does not always mean that words are exchanged. just as i can consent no matter what my behavior, i can be revoking that consent and not saying a word. that doesn’t mean it’s not rape or abuse.
This comment was written by bostontransplant.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Bean I think what I’m uncomfortable with is the idea that “BDSM practice should be subject to radical feminist analysis”, becomes a debate in which there are two sides, practitioners of BDSM and radical feminists. Those seem to me two completely different things, quite frankly.
This comment was written by More anonymity than I ususally require.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Bostontransplant, I find it tough to get into the “is BDSM sex?” area unless it’s with folks that I know already speak the language. Because my only play partner these days is my wife and she’s also my vanilla sex partner, my play tends to be clearly sexual … but of course that’s not the case for everyone.
In my view, however, the erotic dynamics of BDSM are such that it never gets all that far from sex (broadly defined). My scenes often do not involve penetration or climax, but they are intimate in a way that, for me, is essentially a sexual intimacy.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Tapetum writes:
Right, but BDSM is explicitly about things that are often considered “abusive”. I admit to being less than 100% informed, but is there any form of BDSM that would not be considered “abuse” if done outside of a scene (and assuming that non-violent, egalitarian, consensual relationships are the model for “non-abusive”, for this sake of this question)?
I wouldn’t consider getting spanked to be a prelude to hot sex, but within the BDSM scene getting spanked is, for some, a prelude to hot sex. If we could make, unimpeded by BDSM apologists, the statement “hitting never leads to hot sex” I think we’d be further on the road to ending the non- “safe, sane, consensual” forms of abuse.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Sex as well as any kind of sexual touch, which are frequently part of scenes and which constitute play only because they take place within a scene.
Is there any romantic or sexual behavior which, outside the framework of evolving consent, is not abusive and does not constitute either assault or harassment?
Somehow, I don’t think that’s a major contributing factor to the persistence of abuse in non-BDSM intimate relationships. The fact of consensual intercourse hasn’t made it any more difficult for activists to clearly define rape. Plus, BDSM exists, and so the statement, “hitting never leads to hot sex,” is not true and won’t ever be true. It is possible to “hit” someone during a safe, respectful, completely consensual interaction completely removed from the abuse we all want to prevent. If writers and activists can’t deal with that reality, and refine their arguments accordingly, they’re not very good communicators.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
FCH, your argument is circular: you assume your conclusion in your definition. You say that you want to define “non-abusive” as non-violent and egalitarian (by which you apparently mean the absence of power dynamics). If my wife says to me, “I want you to fuck me, but don’t climax without permission,” that is very hot for me, and I don’t think most people would consider it abuse. If my wife fondles my penis to near-climax for several days in a row and instructs me not to masturbate, that’s very hot for me. I don’t think most folks would call that “abuse” either. It is, however, a consensual power exchange and therefore, I guess, “abusive” as you’ve defined it.
Moreover, it’s not at all clear that “violence”, as you’re using the term, has anything to do with abuse. I’ve been hit far harder and hurt far worse playing sports than doing BDSM, but few people consider sports abusive: participation in sports, for adults, generally is undertaken with informed consent.
Finally, you keep referring to “apologists,” but I’m not sure there are any apologists here. I’m a sadomasochist, and I’m not offering any apologies.
This comment was written by Thomas.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Thomas writes:
I said masculi