Folks, this is an R-rated post.
Some interesting exchanges in the comments section below Friday’s post on feminism and BDSM prompt me to follow-up.
In the thread, the basic positions (sorry, can’t help it!) are sketched out: one camp argues that BDSM is only a turn-on because of patriarchal conditioning. According to this view, when consenting adults mutually delight in bondage/discipline/submission/domination, they’re still replicating in the bedroom the brokenness of the culture. If we lived in a world without toxically oppressive sex roles, the thinking goes, no one would be turned on by bondage or pain or domination. If we want to end public oppression, we need to make sure our private erotic lives do not replicate (symbolically or substantively) that oppression.
The other camp usually stipulates that the turn-on of BDSM is culturally conditioned. I don’t encounter a lot of folks who say that a delight in BDSM is genetic! But the fact that we live in a culture that eroticizes often unhealthy power imbalances doesn’t mean that every such exchange in the bedroom is automatically an unhealthy replication of a warped society. In this view, BDSM can be both healthy and redemptive. I’ve heard from too many women and men who, though sexually disenfranchised and victimized through childhood or adolescent abuse, have found liberation and authentic erotic empowerment through BDSM. (Someone mentioned the terrific Secretary, which while a perhaps problematic film from a feminist standpoint, came closer to “getting” that aspect of submission and domination than anything I’ve seen in the mainstream.) I’m not going to pathologize these folks or question their feminist credentials, particularly when so many of them (like Dev) are willing to wrestle with the feminist implications of their sexual lives.
Pisaquari writes:
Believe it or not, what people do in their bedroom does NOT stay there. It perpetuates how they treat other people, what they do to the next lover, interactions with the sex industry, etc…
At least in part, that’s right. While like any good liberal I believe in a right to privacy (whether or not it is enshrined in the Constitution), I also acknowledge (as most folks do) that most of us don’t do a great job of building a wall between our public and our private lives. If my sexual life with my wife were characterized by degradation and mistrust, that would invariably carry over into my teaching. If I were to go back to using pornography, as I did many years ago, it would sooner or later affect the way I view the women in my life. If we’re taking sex seriously, we put a lot of ourselves into it! And the reverse is true — if we’re taking sex seriously, how we have it will invariably help shape who we are, for better or worse.
How I have sex matters. If I don’t practice my feminism in my sexual life, then my feminism is superficial and hypocritical. If I don’t practice my faith in the marriage bed, then my faith — despite my claims — has not really transformed my life. The specific details of my sexual life with my wife are, of course, private. But I will say that what we do in the bedroom is far less important than the devotion, honesty, and caring with which we do it. What makes sex unethical, I am convinced, is exploitation, abuse, dishonesty, and selfishness. What makes sex righteous (and feminist) is genuine concern for mutual pleasure, radical trust, and a willingness to be there for the other person as he or she processes through their own responses to the sex that’s being had.
It’s possible, too, to overthink this stuff. The word “fuck”, for example, is a loaded with potential anti-feminist implications. It’s a word we use for sex — and violence. We do our children a disservice by raising them in a culture where the most common vulgar term for intercourse (”fucking”) is so closely linked to the term that most commonly expresses sudden anger (”Fuck off!”). In a world where women are often victims of male violence that mixes together sex and rage, it’s more than a little unfortunate that our most popular slang word also mixes the two! That said, I think a feminist can cry out (when so inclined) “Fuck me!” or “I’m going to fuck you so hard!” in good conscience. A lusty and enthusiastic “let’s fuck” may take a similar semantic form to the vocabulary of degradation and violence, but thinking adults (even thinking teens) can use the phrase with emotional and ideological safety. The words themselves matter less than how they are understood at the time.
Here’s the point: if honesty, integrity, communication, trust and concern for the other’s well-being are the hallmarks of good sex, then I think it quite possible that many practitioners of BDSM could meet that standard at least as well as those of us who are cheerfully “vanilla.” One thing I’ve learned from my friends in that “scene”: it is possible to “perform” acts of domination and submission in the bedroom (or the family dungeon!) while also practicing radical respect and mutuality. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a huge amount of potential for ritualized self-abuse, soul-destroying cruelty, and toxic exploitation within the BDSM world. But you can have miserable, selfish, damaging sex with your spouse in the missionary position with the lights off. Take it from this thrice-divorced fella. The postures adopted, the wedding bands present or not, and the toys and tools used do not tell us much about whether or not sex is mutual, loving, or safe.
Ultimately, “Good Sex” (in the larger sense of “contributing to the greater good” as well as mutually pleasurable) can happen in an almost infinite variety of ways. And though it does not fall into the realm of my own experience, I am reliably assured by those whom I trust that it can even involve the carefully negotiated use of pain and domination.
“I’m not going to pathologize these folks or pull their feminist credentials…”
But you’re going to imply that you could, if you wanted to?
The “pull their feminist credentials” line was intended playfully. Not only do I not issue said credentials, no one can pull them. After all the fights in the feminist ’sphere over waxing and boob jobs and high heels and taking a man’s name, I think most folks are tired of the whole notion of “credentials”.
Let’s keep on topic here, and replace my use of the word “pull” with “question”.
I feel these things are more present in my (bdsm-involving) relationship with my current boyfriend than they have been for me in any previous relationship, and I think, for us, the bdsm (including the dominant/submissive aspect) contributes to that.
It feels to me like this has to be true because doing bdsm stuff is hard. It’s really hard. If you screw up giving someone pleasure, you probably only didn’t pleasure them. If you screw up hurting someone, you might really hurt them. If you screw up a dominant dynamic, you might really wound their soul. It’s not at all obvious what people are looking for or what they need - it’s way less obvious than in normal sex (IME).
But that argument is a bit like how some motorcyclists will tell you that “you can’t bike drunk” and thus imply that drunk driving isn’t a problem for bikers. There are jerks and screw-ups doing bdsm just like every other kind of thing. What’s different (if anything) is that bdsm is a strongly self-policing subculture, perhaps because the sane practitioners recognize how difficult it is, so that there is a lot of preaching about consent, sanity, safety, ethics, etc.
Sure, I just brought it up because I remember you writing a whole post on the issue, which I thought was good, and I thought you might have forgotten it.
After studying and taking part in the fetish scene and being pretty serious about my own feminist wiles, I have to say I agree with you am happy you’re bringing the scene into a positive light. One of the most sensual and respectful displays of BDSM I have seen was a gentleman named Bond Dave tying up his assistant with soft silk scarves. His knots are not only aesthetically pleasing, but it was also clear that his lovely lady was enjoying herself immensely during the demonstration at a local convention. I wish more people would bring to light the different variances in the fetish world and also bring up the fact that a good session can’t work without two or more people who are dedicated to satisfying their partner’s needs. Not only are the people who are open with their fetishes usually considerate, they also accept people of all body types, races, and creeds as sexually desirable; it can be hard to find such acceptance in the mainstream world.
Thank goodness I didn’t join feminism for friends.
I agree, Hugo, with your account of ethics in sexuality–that you dared even assert moral elements in sex is rare enough (are you prepared to be considered all things Fundie and un-hip by the Lefty-Gonzo-Speech-Saviors?).
Hugo: “I’ve heard from too many women and men who, though sexually disenfranchised and victimized through childhood or adolescent abuse, have found liberation and authentic erotic empowerment through BDSM.”
I don’t buy it. Waxing poetic/erotic even. “Liberation?” (that poor word–I want to put it in a safe and not let it out for a thousand years). Blech. One of my fav bloggers (Twisty, respectively) once said: “the oppressed cannot volunteer their oppression.” I see this quite the same. Your example above Hugo mentions the roots of these practices: abuse, and unhealthy conditioning. BDSM is not the act of freeing one’s self from these unhealthy constraints but, instead, the act of enjoying not being free of them. Of continuously remembering and inadvertently praising those misfortunes and horrors that put them there. That is not freedom, that is patriarchy’s chastity belt–*Please*: We’ve deflated the concepts of “liberation” and “empowerment” enough.
What kind of feminist would I be if I let dialogues stop there? If I did not want people to experience their life to its fullest capacity? What kind of feminist stops talking when someone says they’ve found a way to sexually capitulate to mental and emotional violations that should have NEVER been placed on them in the first place? And what kind of feminist has the nerve to call this liberation?
This conversation is too incomplete for me. Wholly negligent and irresponsible.
I find it uncaring.
This conversation is too incomplete for me. Wholly negligent and irresponsible.
I find it uncaring.
Nobody’s forcing you to stay. But very interesting that you assume BDSM is always male dominant/sadist and female submissive/masochist.
“you assume BDSM is always male dominant/sadist and female submissive/masochist.”
Cite me on this, please.
Pisaquari, you’re reminding me of Twisty in that, while I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying, I’m glad you are saying it. I’m glad for it to be said.
And I agree that it doesn’t really matter, for the sake of analysis, who is on top.
Wendy wrote:
One of the really enjoyable things about the bdsm club I go to is that all ages, sexual identities/preferences, and body types are present. It’s cool.
Well, pisaquari, did you mean something other than male/female BDSM by citing patriarchal influences and the Twisty quote about how the oppressed cannot consent to their oppression?
Have to disagree that the BDSM community is totally open and cool to everyone.
I meant all BDSM, performed by anyone of any sex of any combination.
Dev-
What are your thoughts on the Marquis?
I’ve had a friend who was culturally submissive and it engaged her thinking to persue that line of “romanticism” but to sum up my response to both your posts on this topic, the “ideal” some have found of “pushing one’s boundaries” with another is inherantly anti-God as it takes the process of healing as dominantly God based to dominantly other based. The opportunity to exploit either the d or s is astounding- and deceptive in it’s D/s message that it’s anything but, and at all naturally occuring by His design. Naturally (no toys, titles, scene nor man made rules necessary), the process of “living by faith” is pushing those boundaries between what one’s taught they are by society/culture/elders, and a “renewed mind”/ self identity in Him. Man (as in human) was NOT created to dominate other people- nor submit to them. A leadership role to “subdue the earth” does not include to lord over other human beings. D/S relationships play with something wholely sacred- no human being was made to be dominated over or submitted to, but treated equally. Exploitation whether consented to nor feeling momentarily good, is in either case healthy. So consent away so to speak, but it gives power where it is not due, and does not lead to healing as if it did, there would be former D/M people- not those with escalating proclivities. The violence from my experience does not lag but increase- that’s not God. And He is the One who made us all so should know the “operating manual” best. Nothing good can ultimately come from giving the opportunity to another to be “dominated” over nor submitted to- as all it leads to is temporary relief, not long term deliverance, which is the true nature of addiction. Humbly I submit to the world (pun a bit intended :)) only a relationship with God, according to His Word, delivers. As for that friend, she seems to have learned the hard way that accepting only gentle, consistent, and non exploitive love (based on wholeness, not the broken parts only He can mend) is freeing. Thankfully, she’s no longer trapped in what she had, but what has now surrounded her by the healing she wanted all along. But it happened naturally- not by “consented force” with the man made for her- but not the one she would have chosen. As a True feminist (by my ideal) I agree with what she concluded, that only God can handle, manage and deserves the power over our Choice- physically, mentally and emotionally. Otherwise, even if in the socio/sexual arena, it truely is exploitation therefore thinly veiled anti-humanist (not just anti-feminist). And finally a question: is there a word for God based hedonism? That describes me perfectly. I’m enraptured with His dominion and cause for us all to establish Heaven on earth but not by our means, as a mere human, but by His. That is true Freedom.
Okay, then maybe it’s the stream-of-consciousness phrasing of your post, but I’m not following you, pisauqari. How does patriarchy and oppression come into play between, say, two gay men who are engaging in any kind of BDSM activity?
davev:
De Sade? My only real exposure was a couple of hours I spent reading the beginning of Justine once. I was disturbed by the non-consensual aspects. Non-consensuality is common enough in fantasies of course (both kink and non-kink), but my understanding is that de Sade also practiced non-consensually in life. But there are not many people from the distant past whose sexual ethics I admire, you know?
Mythago, I’m sure pisaquari will answer, but I’d like to take a stab at your question too.
From a fairly standard feminist viewpoint, patriarchy is not limited to interactions where men have power over women. Instead, it represents a general model of hiearchical power structure where some have power over others. You could say that it sort of starts with men dominating women, but then becomes the model for all interactions in the culture. That’s the idea, anyway.
“But very interesting that you assume BDSM is always male dominant/sadist and female submissive/masochist.”
Whether or not Pisaquari believes this, there are many who do, and I find it confounding. Being mostly asexual, I have no first-hand experience of that whole sub-culture, and so I can’t say for sure who is usually “on top,” but society seems to have much more comfort with BDSM if it’s a woman tying up (and doing whatever to) a man. Cripes: I was home one day a few years ago and saw a woman on ALL MY CHILDREN (daytime TV isn’t exactly John Waters) tie up her husband WITHOUT his consent. Many Hollywood and television scenarios have the same thing; they use the word “dominatrix” like it’s going out of style, but never show a male “dominator” doing the same things to women.
I try not to judge people for their sexual fetishes, especially because I’m not sexually active and it would therefore seem like finger-waving, but I’m not sure it’s 100% healthy to receive such pleasure from either giving pain to another human being, or receiving pain from that person. It just seems like there are hidden issues when that is the case.
Boy Genteel
http://www.safe4all.org
“How does patriarchy and oppression come into play between, say, two gay men who are engaging in any kind of BDSM activity?”
One: what Dev said. Two: patriarchy oppresses people through power structures that extend way past gender roles: age, ability, class, income, etc…I never once mentioned gender in my post so I am a bit confused as to how you thought I was assuming these power differentials meant a female/male paradigm. My main concern, as expressed in the bulk of my post, has to deal with the continued indulgence in past abuses/conditioning rooted in violations–and that BDSM does not let people actually free themselves of these issues. I would find and argue this as problematic without mention of the patriarchy. But because (as I mentioned) our patriarchal system rewards those who engage in dominating behavior (*not* limited to gender), especially behaviors related to sexuality, I continue to see no redeeming value in BDSM.
If you still take issue with what I have said or don’t feel I have satisfied your concern *please* (if you would) quote me directly and respond to that particular statement. I think it would add economy to the discussion.
pisaquari,
I agree with much of what you’ve said. However the problem I have with what you’ve written is the one of the people who can or will not reprogram themselves. Must they choose between sexual pleasure and feminism or can they be like lipstick wearing feminists, women who understand the social pressure on their choices, that their choice to wear makeup is not entirely free, but who continue to do it because it brings them pleasure and they’d rather fight other battles.
bmmg39, I’m not sure how much you get out, but Hollywood pretty much assumes male domination of women. An entire subgenre of horror movies is built around it.
I would find and argue this as problematic without mention of the patriarchy. But because (as I mentioned) our patriarchal system rewards those who engage in dominating behavior (*not* limited to gender), especially behaviors related to sexuality, I continue to see no redeeming value in BDSM.
Still not following you. If patriarchy is the root from which all oppression flows, then how can you not mention the patriarchy? If there is no clear demarcation such as sex, race, etc. to mark who is “supposed to” dominate whom, is that really a situation where one person is an oppressor? And if domination is the problem, would SM be OK if there is no domination involved? (I’m honestly not following your phrasing very well; I apologize if it’s an issue where your primary language is not English, but you are spectacularly unclear.)
Elaine, this sounds like a much broader question about feminist philosophies than specific dynamics within BDSM (though I see its relationship–it all links together eventually).
The negotiations women are forced to make between what they know to be better and what has been directly constructed as their “pleasure” is a crappycrappy condition. I don’t pretend such negotiations are easy. I also don’t pretend they are impossible. The wonderful thing I have found about reprogramming pleasure, as you say, is that it can align with feminism. Have I foregone pleasure for a time to recondition? Yep. Do I understand some women are in better positions to make this transition than others? Yep. If some simply decide they don’t want to go through that phase, whatever it takes, I do understand.
But for the sake of feminism and its progression and future women not having to make such distressing negoatiations we should not celebrate those concessions. We should not call them liberating. We should not indulge them with praise. We should call them by name. They are compromises, trade-offs. Wear lipstick but call it a construct. Get off on your domination/submission but don’t tell people you are free. Get a boob job but don’t go on Dr. Phil announcing your new found confidence. Have the courtesy to let people know when you make those concessions. Have the decency to give someone else they key to the exit door.
What are your philosophies on this matter?
mythago, while English is most definitely my first language, I am thinking we may have to simply dissolve talks over *sheer confusion*. I will try my best:
“If patriarchy is the root from which all oppression flows, then how can you not mention the patriarchy?”
-My point was that patriarchy does not have to be “mentioned” to understand what can be so troublesome about “the continued indulgence in past abuses/conditioning rooted in violations.”
“If there is no clear demarcation such as sex, race, etc. to mark who is “supposed to” dominate whom, is that really a situation where one person is an oppressor?”
-Please quote the exact phrase/sentence where I have said/implied there is no “clear demarcation such as sex, race, etc…” At that point I can (hopefully) better answer this question.
“And if domination is the problem, would SM be OK if there is no domination involved?”
-Sexualizing domination is as troublesome to me as sexualizing submission. SM I still find to be rooted in unhealthy pasts experiences. Engaging these unhealthy pasts I do not find to be “OK.”
“bmmg39, I’m not sure how much you get out, but Hollywood pretty much assumes male domination of women. An entire subgenre of horror movies is built around it.”
Bingo, Mythago. The key word there is “horror.” The torture of women by men is seen as a horror movie, whereas the torture of men by women is seen as sitcom-worthy. In fact, Eli Roth was quoted in a magazine as saying that in HOSTEL II he had to ratchet up the horror a notch, and that’s why the sequel had mostly women as the victims (whereas the original had mostly men being tortured). He explained that “seeing women being tortured is inherently worse,” which means, of course, that, conversely, he believes that seeing men being abducted, tortured, and killed isn’t so bad. Yup.
I think that’s a little too black and white.
Sticking with the lipstick analogy: Lipstick is not just about a feminine social construct, it’s also an art, and it’s also a symbol. Lipstick is used in a wide variety of ways and contexts. It can be used to get the job promotion, to seal a love letter, to fit into societal norms, to graffiti a subway advertisement, to keep your lips from getting chapped, to purposefully stain clothing, to pass, to become a character in a play or movie… And vibrators and pipes now come in the shape of a lipstick tube, subverting the original meaning of lipstick.
If lipstick has such a variety or uses/ meanings/ interpretations/ forms and if some feminists are capable of using lipstick to undo (some of) the patriarchy, then why should we assume all lipstick is all bad all the time?
I really do think that it’s a fair analogy.
“It can be used to get the job promotion, to seal a love letter, to fit into societal norms, to graffiti a subway advertisement, to keep your lips from getting chapped, to purposefully stain clothing, to pass, to become a character in a play or movie… And vibrators and pipes now come in the shape of a lipstick tube, subverting the original meaning of lipstick.”
Elaine, in all fairness, listing these multiple uses of a tube of lipstick is not really consistent with the original example you and I discussed: someone using lipstick as makeup with knowledge of the social implications. I am a bit interested, however, in how you justify someone using lipstick to get a job promotion/fit into society, as some undoing of the patriarchy.
“If lipstick has such a variety or uses/ meanings/ interpretations/ forms and if some feminists are capable of using lipstick to undo (some of) the patriarchy, then why should we assume all lipstick is all bad all the time?”
I didn’t say, and don’t mean to imply that, *all possible* uses of lipstick are downright oppressing. One could dismantle a stripper pole to pull a drowning person out of the water. Use gonzo porn tapes to build a table leg. But this is tangential if we are going to discuss the sex industry and what is socially salvageable for feminism.
Lipstick being worn to color lips will do nothing to undo patriarchy/further feminism. I’d much rather be black and white on this than go so gray we never get anything done.
As far as I can understand there seem to be two arguements against BDSM:
1) That people who participate in BDSM are either engaged in something which is damaging to themselves or engaged in something which is damaging overall and
2) That BDSM has some connection to the patriarchy and/or sex work and/or female oppression and/or the ideas behind female oppression.
Both as far as I can understand fall into the “and so what?” catagory. People are damaged and are not, as far as I can find, perfect in all aspects. Often people do not know why they find what works for them sexually does so. I do not have any experience in BDSM but those who have explained their attraction to it have given reasons which I consider sensible and liberating for them individually. And the parts I don’t get fall generally into the same catagory as things like people who like to collect shoes - It’s not my game but so what? Admittedly most of my experience is with leatherdykes and queer BDSM and the question of how this effects “the patriarchy” is up there with “will no one think of the ducks and other wildlife?” There may be a connection but no one in the room can figure it out exactly.
But then again, I have never considered that I have to ask anyone to surrender thier present life for the sake of someone’s future feminism. They get to choose what salad dressing they want and if they want informed and considered BDSM with a consentual and informed partner…….so what? Any idea that BDSM is “bad” sex implies that the speaker knows what good sex is - if so, please provide a list because both the Joy of Sex and the Joy of lesbian sex list consentual bondage sex - I guess I didn’t find the Joy of Patriarchy-Free Feminist Sex - is a volume coming out soon?
Really interesting blogg - yet again Hugo.
I have often thought along the same lines as pisaquari, that BDSM was a kind of human psycho - sexual equivelent of being stuck on a hamster wheel, only possibly more fun. So I took the route of dealing with my issues and did not get involved, although the scene did seem appealing to me when I was younger.
But you and your contributors talk of such depth of caring, trust, tenderness and thoughtfulness. I have no desire to dominate or be dominated in any significant way, but these other qualities in sex can so often be lacking - maybe we could all learn from BDSM.
And I guess we all take our own paths.
bmmg, you don’t generally see sexualized torture of men, and you don’t see movies that lovingly revolve around sexualized torture of men–Deliverance is still legendary because it involved male-on-male rape, whereas you could spend all weekend reciting movies that featured male-on-female rape.
Female violence toward men is very often treated as slapstick in our culture–it’s not like those silly girls could ever really hurt a man, therefore it’s funny, like a little kid beating up an adult in the Full House movies. It’s rarely seen as anything like a serious threat. Women just don’t *do* that. /eyeroll
I don’t think Roth is being entirely honest, bluntly. Seeing women tortured is par for the course in horror.
I’m not saying that violence against women by men is not the norm in movies, but violence against men by men is pretty standard to. There is some academic discourse about the homo erotic impact/quality of action/fight movies. I’m thinking Arnie, martial arts films etc its said to be a way of displaying mens bodies to men in a legitimate way.
And yes, female violence against men is treated a bit wierdly, cant make out what that means myself.
Have you seen the latest Bond film? The scene where Daniel Craig is tied naked and beautiful to a chair and then tortured by having his genitalia pelted is pretty much undeniably sexualised violence against a man, but by a man. This scene was really shocking and unusual.
“bmmg, you don’t generally see sexualized torture of men, and you don’t see movies that lovingly revolve around sexualized torture of men–Deliverance is still legendary because it involved male-on-male rape, whereas you could spend all weekend reciting movies that featured male-on-female rape.”
I respectuflly disagree that we don’t see much torture of men. Of course, there are two levels: the one in the James Bond movie just reference, and then the kind of thing that’s not as harmful (especially when it’s consensual) — spanking, and whatnot. But both of these, it seems to me, are far more common with the woman as giver and man as taker (or whatever the terminology is), at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. Again, no first-hand experience here…
One quite recent example of the former is that new show about “Chuck and his secret” on NBC. Our hapless hero is shown in the teaser, sitting on a chair as a woman throws knives dangerously close to his groin. We’re still supposed to root for him and not her, I think, but our reaction is expected to be “whoa, that was close, heh-heh.” And such scenes have become so common that we’re expected to laugh for a few seconds and then forget about it. No one would be laughing or forgetting about it, though, were it a man throwing knives near a woman’s crotch.
“Female violence toward men is very often treated as slapstick in our culture–it’s not like those silly girls could ever really hurt a man, therefore it’s funny, like a little kid beating up an adult in the Full House movies. It’s rarely seen as anything like a serious threat. Women just don’t *do* that. /eyeroll”
That’s a point I’ve made before: that the attitude of “women hitting men isn’t a big deal, because they’re ‘only’ women” is about as insulting to woman as it is unfair to men. Not exactly woman-positive to dismiss everything she does as harmless…
And I hate the HOME ALONE movies (I assume that’s what you meant), even if they’re the “bad guys” and he’s “just a little boy.” I really don’t like to see anyone experiencing pain. Guess I’m “not normal” that way…
boy genteel