Imagine my surprise when a recent post in which I waxed autobiographical about my former life as a rock star devolved, in the comments, into a discussion on BDSM.
I kid, I kid! I wasn’t really surprised. All posts on feminist blogs eventually devolve into discussions on BDSM. There’s a Usenet term for this phenomenon. It’s called Geekwad’s Law.
Although I remain somewhat unclear as to what always and without fail prompts people to espouse the hotsy-totsyness of their nerdy whippy-leather fucking games whenever I type the word “sex” in a blog post, and although I am admittedly without much in the way of my own cunt-whipping credentials, my inner culture critic is moved to remark—all patriarchy-blaming aside— that sadism strikes me (ha! ha-ha!) as a rather pedestrian hobby. I further suggest that BDSM, like most counterculture “scenes,” is perhaps overly self-congratulatory on its supposed transgressivitude, since its constituents clearly demand the most banal ritual conformity, to a degree that possibly surpasses even that of junior high school. Which school, as you know, wrote the book on banal ritual conformity.
BDSM reminds me, among other things, of Dungeons & Dragons, and the dog show circuit, and those dudes in the park with swords and chain mail, and indie rock musicians, and guys who wear Star Trek uniforms to work, and people who deconstruct “American Idol” episodes in internet forums, and toddler beauty pageants. Except that BDSM probably involves a bit more stylized rape than most of those.
Am I mocking your “lifestyle”? I sure am! Although this should come as no surprise to even the casual reader, since I have made it no secret that the founding principle of I Blame The Patriarchy is opposition to all dominance models in the social order.
Whether or not it is true of your particular sexyclub, there can be no doubt that a lifestyle of ritualized dominance and submission carries with it a high risk of true abuse; few people exist in the world who are capable of finessing such a thing into the art form its proponents believe it to be. I know this because few people exist in the world who are capable of finessing anything into art, and there is little evidence to suggest that a scene based on so inane a pursuit as orgasm should be any different.
Well, the term “sex-positive” was posted, and people read into it what they could . . . obviously it means different things to different people!
At first, I figured, it is precicely because hetero-sex AND the BDSM world offer such a caricature images of Patriarchy (dom man/sub woman,man on top/woman on bottom) that this thread couldn’t HELP but devolve this way. HOWEVER, at another site, the “sex-positive” topic has devolved to marxism and socialism and the commodification of so-called “women’s work” so there is no TELLING how world-wide internet debates with near-strangers will devolve.
I suppose folks just write about what they know . . .
I think BDSM falls into the whatever-people-do-in-private-behind-closed-doors category of things that are their own business. At least, I hope so. Otherwise, I mostly don’t want to hear about people’s sex lives.
The thing about BDSM is that it gets people off by being transgressive, etc. Therefore, because it is so grounded in culture and shame and whatnot, it’s definitely a reflection of the culture at large. Should people deconstruct their sex lives? I dunno, maybe. Some people want to go blindly in pursuit of orgasms, which is fine as I long as I don’t have to hear about it.
The potential for abuse exists in every relationship, as does the potential to play out patriarchal sex roles. As long as everybody’s having fun, then I don’t have a problem with other people doing bondage.
If you want to stamp out kinky sex, just raise your children without any sort of guilt or shame regarding sex. They’ll be boringly vanilla, much to the frustration of their ex-catholic partners.
Thank you! You have an amazing talent of summing up an issue with a few pointed paragraphs. You are among my few heroes!
“Should people deconstruct their sex lives?”
Absolutely! Because, dude, the way one seeks closeness with an intimate partner is pretty telling about onsself! For example: Does “little girl” roleplaying get a specific man off? Why? Wouldn’t that mean hr’d like to actually have sex with little girls? I mean, we don’t get off on ideas we secretly hate, do we? Wouldn’t that make him a threat to little girls, after years of desensitization to the inherent wrongness of the idea through roleplay/practice?
It seems kind of important to deconstruct our sex lives, ESPECIALLY men, since they’re the ones, primarily, who are inflicting their sex lives on women.
Twisty, you rock, you roll, and the words that spill from your lips are pure gold.
Excellent post, per usual.
Oh and here is an excellent, most enlightening use of the term ‘vanilla’ which I’m currently having a discussion of over at my own site.
Terrific post, Twisty. If only I had an ounce of your wit and humor when casting blame on patriarchy….
I confess, i was seriously disappointed that the discussion didn’t devolve into a massive circlejerk over your Les Pauls. I so wanted to go there.
Now I have to go change clothes because “Geekwad’s Law” made me wet my pants. Always fun to start the morning over at Chez Twisty!
Thanks for another great post.
The hurdle I have with BDSM is that if I think that harming or humiliating another person is wrong, how does it become right just because the person being harmed has agreed to it? If a woman accepts being beaten by her husband as right because of her religious beliefs, does that make it okay? If a woman accepts FGM because she want to be marriageable, is FGM okay? BDSM folk talk a lot about “consent” but I’ve not seen much time explanation of how they identify that a person is consenting. Is anything that isn’t clearly overt coercion consent?
Liz–I so would have jumped in on that circle jerk. And I’ve never even touched a Les Paul–just keep getting stuck with Some Guy’s Old Strat. Thanks for the laugh!
And I agree with the above: Twisty rocks hard. Dungeons and Dragons. Heh heh heh. The few times I dabbled in BDSM I felt ridiculous. I guess I got off easy–but–I felt RIDICULOUS I TELL YOU! Ick.
Another day, another excellent post that spoke to me as if I were the person you are writing for, Twisty.
Merci beaucoup.
touche
I don’t like that shit in my Sweet and Sour Chicken either.
I had never made the connection between BDSM and Dungeons and Dragons before. This actually explains A LOT about my exhusband.
D&D, SCA, BDSM, fetishists: Sometimes I wonder if all of these people have to play make-believe to enjoy sex because they’re embarrassed or guilty about enjoying sex at all. Is it like they’re someone *else* when they’re enjoying the sex? Sigh. It seems kind of sad, when all you really need to get off is a human body or, preferably, two.
It seems like it must be really boring to have to enact the same little role-playing scenario, with the same shoes and the same sheets and the same outfits, over and over and over, to get off. What if the dog chews up your favorite dildo and the company has discontinued it? It seems awfully limiting to me to have to get out the accoutrements every time you want to have sex.
Fellow blamers, help a vanilla hetboy out here, if you will.
I hear the occasional intelligent woman defending BDSM, and I’m generally a laissez-faire kinda guy, and yet such defenses usually make me think of conversations I had with a Close Woman Relative about the husband that kept beating the crap out of her, and how he was really trying to change and I Just Didn’t Know Him The Way She Did, and if anything the BDSM defenses strike me as more hermetically sealed against criticism than the denial of my Close Woman Relative, due to the veneer of consent.
My question: am I wrong and condescending, or just wrong?
- Perplexed in Pinole
Just re-read my comment: I meant I “got off easy” as in I didn’t suffer any humiliation or pain–not that my dabblings brought me easy orgasms. Sheesh!
Chris, Perplexed in Pinole’s analogy only makes sense to me if you assume that women are always invariably on the bottom in BDSM.
But because I know many male bottoms, female tops, switches of both genders, same-sex couples, and totally nongendered BDSM scenes (usually SM without the DS, focused on giving/receiving sensation rather than roles), I don’t quite see the comparison you’re making.
Chris, Perplexed in Pinole’s analogy only makes sense to me if you assume that women are always invariably on the bottom in BDSM.
I don’t. Neither do I assume that women are always the recipients of male violence in relationships, though that is the way to bet. I know not a few men who’ve been the victims of violence from their women partners, and gay-lesbian couples where battering is an issue.
Then why do you make the point of raising this question when a woman defends BDSM, rather than of all advocates of BDSM?
[I’m not attacking you, just pointing out what caught my eye about the original comment.]
Because that’s the way to bet.
Sorry Twisty!
For the record, I would have been happy to go down the rock music side too. oh hang on, having arguments about feminism and lifestyle choices, and then talking about indy music - all we need is dancing and alcohol, and it’s my favorite evening out. (I am afraid I have not yet left behind the tutu and big boots thing… possibly the patriarchy’s fault…)
As for the BDSM discussion, I think I have contributed as much as I’m gonna for a bit. Thanks for a respectful and thoughtful discussion though. I was a bit nervous wading in, I have only commented a few times on blogs and I am new to it.
Twisty, yet again, you have managed to put into words the thoughts I’ve long had on a particular subject yet could never manage to form into a coherent explanation.
Have I told you lately that I love you?
Cos I do.
From my lengthy career as a whatever it is that I am, one absolute truth has emerged: whenever you find yourself saying to those of your concerned friends and relatives who aren’t wearing rose-colored glasses, “but you just don’t know him/her like I do,” it’s time to run screaming from the relatioship in question. I have yet to observe an exception to this rule.
I further suggest that BDSM, like most counterculture “scenes,†is perhaps overly self-congratulatory on its supposed transgressivitude, since its constituents clearly demand the most banal ritual conformity, to a degree that possibly surpasses even that of junior high school. Which school, as you know, wrote the book on banal ritual conformity.
Yes! Yes yes yes! Thank you for that insight, Twisty. I’ve always suspected that as well.
My 95 year old mother in law loves American Idol. She loves the idea of seeing those nice young people starting out on their careers. How cool is that?
Over at the Modernist, you’ll find a similar article by Edgar Barrington discussing the idea of subcultures. An excerpt:
“Subcultures are great. You gotta get tattoos while you’re still sure you’ll like whatever you’re into right now for the rest of your life. That 40 year old goth guy who still comes to all the parties? He’s cool right? He sure didn’t sell out.
Subcultures are helplessly tied to youth. It’s fairly obvious, but the need to experiment with and loudly proclaim alliegence to various identites usually dies down by the time you’ve actually found your own.”
http://www.themodernist.com/terminal4/Barrington02-01.html (Warning! If you poke around further on the website, you’ll find them to be fairly ensconced in the patriarchy.)
What does this say about BSDM? I guess that I feel the proponents of any lifestyle where the participants feel that they are unique and have to defend it by saying that the outside just doesn’t understand has not taken it upon themselves yet to truly find their own identity.
You can guess how many conversations I’ve had about not understanding the whole St. Louis retro-garage scene.
So very sad. I had to go to Wikipedia to find out what BDSM is.
Yes, yes, yes to the anachronism acting troops being all SM and D&D. I have always wondered if it really isn’t all about playing dress up and having fun with your friends in a way that girls have always done and boys have always wanted to.
By the time we survive childhood in this patriarchy laden society it’s no surprise we dont know who we are, what we want, or how to get it. That might be why they fall back on the junior high default position of carefully structured self contained groups.
Ha! By “fairly ensconced in the patriarchy” Mark means “it’s a porn site featuring naked scenester chicks draped on ‘iconic furniture’.”
Not all subcultures are tied to youth, though. Like the dog show subculture. Did you see “Best In Show”? That was no exaggeration. Dog people are among the world’s nutjobbiest, and they’re mostly middle-aged women.
Ah, yes, dog people. There’s the pit bull set, the Rottweiler set, the poodle set, the golden retriever set…
To be fair to them, I think they are trying to be more than a porn site. But that’s just as fine an arguement as telling people that there are some truly good, thought-provoking articles in Playboy.
Thank you, Twistress! May I have another?
BDSM, as a ’scene’, didn’t seem to be much about youth either when I was involved. I didn’t mention it because it didn’t seem relevant, but I was invariably the youngest person at any gathering I ever attended, my college group excluded. And when I say “youngest person”, I mean by upwards of fifteen or twenty years.
Maybe lately it’s become a new outlet for bored goths/vampires in their late teens, but at the time, AFAIK, we were the only college group (or even group with college-age people) with anything resembling a robust and stable membership, within three states in any direction.
The median age of the local big city group, and the regional REALLYbig city group, was about 40. Next to myself and my small college org, the youngest person I met was over 35.
…not sure if that contributes any insight to the discussion or not….
I further suggest that BDSM, like most counterculture “scenes,†is perhaps overly self-congratulatory on its supposed transgressivitude, since its constituents clearly demand the most banal ritual conformity, to a degree that possibly surpasses even that of junior high school.
This has been my sentiment for years — although at the same time while priding themselves on being transgressive, I have met the occasional BDSM enthusiast who tries to suggest people like me are a bit repressed just because I don’t like sex to hurt. So I have seen a tendency to both brag about how much they freak out the normals while at the same time attempting to stake an interest in BDSM as extremely healthy and natural, perhaps even more so than “vanilla” sex.
And if people think every BDSM relationship ends in the bedroom or outfitted basement upon utterance of the safe word, they should get bored in the middle of the night and browse through the Livejournals of some BDSM people, as I have done. You will see that even in text and outside the bedroom, women still defer to their capital-m, male Masters — the extent to which some let their Masters control them in non-sexual situations and the amount of emotional abuse they endure in the name of being true to their dom-sub relationship (or true to the scene) is appalling. Maybe all those women in abusive relationships should put a positive spin on their situation — it’s not a fucked-up relationship with an abusive asshole, it’s a sexy hot Lifestyle! Problem solved! Time for pie!
My fingers are faster than my brain.
The median age was about 45, not 40.
Yes, yes, YES! Glad to see that I’m not alone in my character associations. I would have to add SCA, because all the SCA people I’ve met are all into D&D, etc, so it wouldn’t surprise me that they were into BDSM. Although I also think that there are many people out there who for whatever reason believe that their sex life is not “interesting enough” that fall into these scenes as well.
And I would like to see a whole lot of deconstructing of people’s sex lives. As with what Dim said before, the thing that creeps me out most lately is that guys seem to think that refering to themselves as “daddy” is sexy. When the hell did incest/paedophilia become sexy? Ew.
Then why do you make the point of raising this question when a woman defends BDSM, rather than of all advocates of BDSM?
[I’m not attacking you, just pointing out what caught my eye about the original comment.]
The problem here is that Chris Clark is equating BDSM with abusive relationships. But although there are some surface similarities, they’re actually quite different.
Twisty makes an interesting point:
…few people exist in the world who are capable of finessing anything into art, and there is little evidence to suggest that a scene based on so inane a pursuit as orgasm should be any different.
I think this sums up the essential difference between abusive relationships and BDSM - BDSM is about the pursuit of orgasm - and stylized abuse is a means to that end.
An abusive relationship is about the pursuit of controlling another person, continuously with no safe word allowed.
I’m not into the BDSM scene, but I had a friend who earned money as a dominatrix, and all parties were aware that it was make-believe at all times. Of course my friend was being paid, and if you hurt the client in a way he didn’t like, you might have a problem getting paid.
They were being paid to be humiliated. One thing my friend’s clients liked was to shit and then have my friend give them a grade on the results.
That’s about as far from sexy as I can possibly imagine. But wealthy men paid good money for it. Human sexuality is really fucking weird. And in this case, a complete waste of time and money IMO. How much more efficient to just fantasize something, masturbate and be done with it. I agree that a hobby in pursuit of orgasm is inane.
But then I think that time spent on thinking about fashion and fashion designers is a waste of time. I’d rather spend an hour at a BDSM club (watching, not participating) than an hour at a fashion show (also watching, not participating.)
And NASCAR is pretty useless too IMO.
Hey, Playboy has bought many a short, non-porn story from some of the late greats of scifi. Which always made me wonder if playboy, actually, *gasp* DID have articles… just not enough to pick one up for research. Always short on either cash or courage.
And BDSM is not comparable to the goth scene- last I checked, sexual kinks don’t come in trial versions. While dominance and role playing games are going to be intimately tied up in the patriarchal culture that spawns the participants, someone who really gets off on them isn’t going to stop getting off on them regardless of the guilt or annoyance or whatever they feel.
Part of the fuzziness around BDSM, I’ve thought, is that it’s not treated like a kink. There’s a bit of ‘everyone likes it rough sometimes’ attitude(ok, more than a bit) which I think is very telling of just how integral dominance and strict gender roles are in our society, that what is a kink only truly held by some people bleeds out into the general sex culture- you don’t see the same thing happening with shoe fetishists.
The problem here is that Chris Clark[e] is equating BDSM with abusive relationships.
Not by any definition of the word “equating” I use.
that what is a kink only truly held by some people bleeds out into the general sex culture- you don’t see the same thing happening with shoe fetishists.
Did yah catch the high-heel thread here a week or so ago?
I think that shoe fetishism is actually MORE out of the closet (so to speak) and mainstream than BDSM. Since the only high-heel that’s comfortable to wear is heinously expensive, clearly wearing high heels are about something besides walking around.
Of course if somebody wants to wear high heels, that’s their choice. Just like BDSM.
My last sounded more combative than I intended. I meant merely to observe a similarity in the tropes by which both practices are defended., not to equatre the practices. I readily plead ignorance as to the innate nature of BDSM.
And Both Lis and Nancy raise good points.
OK, Chris, maybe I misread. Here’s what you said:
hear the occasional intelligent woman defending BDSM, and I’m generally a laissez-faire kinda guy, and yet such defenses usually make me think of conversations I had with a Close Woman Relative about the husband that kept beating the crap out of her, and how he was really trying to change and I Just Didn’t Know Him The Way She Did, and if anything the BDSM defenses strike me as more hermetically sealed against criticism than the denial of my Close Woman Relative, due to the veneer of consent.
You were making a comparison between two things, BDSM and abusive relationships, and their relative criticism sealage (probably not a real word, but anyway…) and that BDSM had a greater level of sealage, due to the “veneer of consent.” - which BTW, you don’t think it’s actual consent?
Based on that, you could just be comparing two things and their level of criticism sealage.
But your response (”because that’s the way to bet”) to Lis Riba’s question (”why do you make the point of raising this question when a woman defends BDSM, rather than of all advocates of BDSM?”) made me think otherwise.
well, this has been educational. twisty’s comparisons to junior high, dog groupies, and those creative anachronism folks hit a chord. i kind of like dress-up and pretend for certain occasions [my own wedding] and plays [used to do costumes] and such….
chris hit another point, the one more important to me. i despise behavior that demeans humans, and tend not to even take jokes about it well. what’s so fun about pretend abuse?
a relative is at this moment declining to leave a battering relationship — she knows that her son seeing mom tossed against a wall isn’t good, but hopes mr. terrific will get nicer through counseling, and that he won’t choke her again in the meantime. i was physically and emotionally abused within my family; even in the safer sphere of work life, i’ve been hit on by the boss, grabbed by strangers, been written off intellectually time and again just for being a girl. i’ve been known to stop the car when a kid’s friend in the back seat started in on gay jokes. real life serves up enough bad news, don’t you think?
live and let live, but debasement is not my cup of tea.
Mock ‘em, Twisty. Give ‘em hell.
I was active and very prominent in the BDSM scene in a large city in Twisty’s home state for 7 years, and I’ll be damned if everything she said isn’t dead on.
My only complaint is that she wasn’t hard enough on the “scene.”
The BDSM scene is composed of two different types of people, whether they believe it of themselves or not: abuse victims (you’re not a suvivor until you stop reenacting the abuse and act like a healthy person), and the people who selfishly exploit them to get their rocks off. Sometimes, perhaps, you find a person who crosses over into the other roles periodically; just like a few child sexual abuse survivors grow up to be perpetrators.
Oh, and the thing BDSM proponents say about how you never can really leave the lifestyle because you won’t be able to resist coming back? Complete and utter bullshit.
Almost four years and counting, baby. Watch me not go back.
Am I mocking your “lifestyle� I sure am! Although this should come as no surprise to even the casual reader, since I have made it no secret that the founding principle of I Blame The Patriarchy is opposition to all dominance models in the social order.
Does mocking someone’s lifestyle not count as dominance?
I’m confused how tying up and beating a woman, while she screams and says “no”, cannot possibly be equated with abuse.
NancyMc . . . shoe fetishism . . . out of the closet . . .
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! more material for my standup routine.
La Twisty, you are amazing. Equating BDSM with LARP - a stroke of genius. Once again, you manage to put into words what I’ve always vaguely thought. BDSM people are always so *earnest* about it, too, again reminding one forciby of Trekkies.
I must, however, try and put in a good word for D&D, which is a thoroughly entertaining game and good practice for the stage, at least when not taken too seriously.
I would think — from what friends have told me — that the operative difference between the two is that in (most) BDSM is that there is a word that *means* no, though it can sound like something else (red, Shakespeare), and that when this word is spoken, the person will stop, while in abuse, there is no such word. (I know there is safeword-free BDSM; I have no comment on that.)
I have to say, I agree with you, Twisty, when it comes to who tend to be the most visible practitioners of BDSM. The connection between D&Ders, LARPers and BDSMers is not a hard one to make.
I don’t quite feel like taking up the Intelligent-Woman-Defending-BDSM role, but I do have to say that there are people out there whose main reason for doing BDSM is not the supposed transgressiveness of it. Not everyone is a D&Der, LARPer, and/or an I-was-uncool-in-highschool-so-now-I’ll-subvert-the-dominant-paradigm-with-kink person.
Many of the commenters need to remember that making assumptions about something you know nothing about is not an intelligent thing to do. Especially the comments about doubting the consensuality of a BDSM scene. Hell, that’s why I like kinky sex; because there is so much more communication going on before, during, and after than usual vanilla sex.
Don’t assume that all BDSMers do the same things in their sex lives and have the same beliefs about sex and relationships. Twisty, you talk about BDSM proponents calling it an artform. Well, since there are no High Lords of BDSM brainwashing new recruits, there are a lot of different opinions about the “artiness” of it. Myself, I do it for the fun of it. I like the amount of giggling and smiling that can occur in a good scene with a familiar, loving partner.
And last I checked, sex is supposed to be fun. The playful nature of BDSM (yes! really!) is lots of fun. That includes role playing. I just don’t see what’s so scoffable about that.
But! Twisty is very up front about the purpose of this blog. I just think that a complete lack of all dominance structures in society is both impossible to achieve and a vision of dullness.
When it comes down to it, though, I understand why people have these images of BDSM because that *is* the popular image of it- losers in leather. But then, it’s rather ignorant to so fully cling to the false popular image.
Damnit, I guess I did grab that role and run with it.
Ha! By “fairly ensconced in the patriarchy†Mark means “it’s a porn site featuring naked scenester chicks draped on ‘iconic furniture’.â€
Which feature interestingly is entitled “Furniture and Naked _People_” (emphasis mine) … though the pics are of women only.
I dunno. Maybe I should feel heartened that one of the appellations for the generic human (i.e., people, person, etc.) that usually seem to imply only or mainly male signifies just the opposite this time? Naaaah…..
I’ve never understood how anyone can take him/herself seriously while wearing a studded dog collar. If I had to prance about in one of those outfits, sex would be impossible because I would never stop laughing.
Does mocking someone’s lifestyle not count as dominance?
It counts as critique. It’s a minority opinion, not social policy.
(In mocking dog people, Trekkies, and indie rockers, it counts as endearingly self-depracating humor.)
Twisty wins at contemptuous invective!
Les: The thing about BDSM is that it gets people off by being transgressive, etc.
I believe that part of the point is that BSDM isn’t. It’s practitioners just really, really want you to believe that it is.
Aero: Many of the commenters need to remember that making assumptions about something you know nothing about is not an intelligent thing to do. Especially the comments about doubting the consensuality of a BDSM scene. Hell, that’s why I like kinky sex; because there is so much more communication going on before, during, and after than usual vanilla sex.
More than one commenter (Dim Undercellar, in particular) is speaking from personal experience in the BDSM “scene.”
Noting this in passing, I move on to ask: if one of the benefits of “kinky” sex is supposed to be the greater level of communication, what’s to stop you from communicating with your partner before, during, and after so-called “vanilla” sex? It seems like the alleged benefit here is not all that closely connected with BDSM and other forms of “kink.” So if that’s what it is that gets you off, why the specific draw to fetishes that have nothing essentially to do with it? (N.B.: it’s not as if anti-BDSM radical feminists haven’t criticized the attitudes that get brought into the bedroom with so-called “vanilla sex”, for involving, among other things, too little in the way of communication and clear boundaries. Andrea Dworkin wrote a whole book on the subject, entitled Intercourse, just to take one example.)
Mark Early: “I guess that I feel the proponents of any lifestyle where the participants feel that they are unique and have to defend it by saying that the outside just doesn’t understand has not taken it upon themselves yet to truly find their own identity.”
So, participants in *any* lifestyle which is widely disapproved of should just assimilate?
I hope I’m misreading you, because that attitude seems apppallingly bigoted.
I suppose I may as well throw my hat in the ring as the token “intelligent woman defending BSDM”. My bona fides - I used to be involved in the scene in my late teens and early twenties. I haven’t been involved for almost 10 years now.
I’m not sure what kind of wierd group some of the people here were involved in, but I’ve never felt safer from rape or abuse or less likely to have my wishes disgregarded than within the BSDM community. Within the community that I was involved with in London the idea that someone might actually try to harm any of the other participants or do anything against their wishes was anathema. New people coming in, especially men, were typically met with a “prove that you’re not an asshole before we agree to let you participate” attitude. Anyone acting out of line was asked to leave. Also, it occurs to me that I don’t actually know a single straight female sub. All the subs I know are either men or lesbians. That could just be a birds of a feather flock together thing, but I’m not convinced that it’s particularly atypical. In my experience most men who describe themselves as doms are actually just creepy assholes who think that getting involved in the scene is an easy way to get laid. They usually get told to take a hike pretty quickly, and most clubs make an effort to screen them out.
I think a lot of people are failing to distunguish between the actual BSDM scene and the facsimile of it produced by the porn industry. The porn version invariably features female subs in skimpy clothing and the same scenarios played out over and over again - it’s really very boring. The actual scene is a lot more playful and a lot less generic. A lot of BSDM people, probably the majority, are pretty much just into playing dress-up. There is a small hardcore group who want to live in their roles 24/7, and they are generally regarded by everyone else as a bit wierd, kind of like the difference between someone who happens to watch Star Trek occasionally and someone who learns to speak Klingon and dresses up for conventions.
The whole question of how you determine consent as stated here is so jaw-droppingly ignorant that I’m reluctant to even wade into it. There’s this thing called talking, you see, that people who are having any kind of sex really should be doing. And it’s pretty damn easy to tell the difference between someone saying “oh no Brer Rabbit, please don’t throw me in the briar patch” and someone who is genuinely not happy. Anyone who can’t tell the difference shouldn’t be having any kind of sex, and is a danger to others no matter how vanilla their preferences may be. The fact that some people (usually men) are unwilling and/or unable to tune in to what their partners want and what they don’t want is endemic in our society, as all good patriarchy-blamers should know. It has very little to do with BSDM.
I’m genuinely puzzled by the frequency with which I hear people claim that BSDM is about women being abused. A woman is far safer from rape in a BSDM club than in a regular bar. It’s not the leather and chains folks who we should be scared of, it’s the drunk frat boys with a sense of entitlement and zero communication skills. Those guys are the actual enemy, and I think we’re forgetting that.
Honestly, I think that part of the problem is that the porn industry loves to use BSDM themes, and that gives people a distorted picture of what it’s really about. In my experience it was always a playful thing - silly at times, absurd at others, but certainly never scary,dangerous or abusive. I suppose it’s possible that I just really lucked out in terms of the people that I got involved with, but I’ve heard the same thing from too many other people to think that my experience is unique.
Addendum - about the whole issue of pain, I think that some people are just wired to associate pain with pleasure. Those people are always going to seek out and find others with the same preferences. I think the problem comes in when some people (usually men, always assholes) attempt to convince other people (usually women) who are not in fact wired that way to participate in BSDM-type activities anyway. No-one should be doing anything sexually that they don’t actually enjoy. I’m not at all sure why people assume that this has anything to do with consensual BSDM. Anyone who tries to force someone else to do something sexual that they don’t actually want to do isn’t a person who’s into BSDM, they’re just an abusive asshole.
I too have problems with the idea that there is not communication during “vanilla” sex, because if there isn’t a lot of communication, I think that you’re doing it wrong! I’ve been working on a new workshop (due to extreme interest) on “sexy consensual talk” because it’s much sexier to ask if you can get someone off then it is to shove your hand down their pants!
Aero made my point, and in far fewer words than I would have. I’m struck by how disparagingly people are talking about something about which they know nothing (Rad Geek, I only counted two commenters who noted their personal experience, and I didn’t take Dim Undercellar’s comments to be all that anti-BDsM, truthfully). What happens when we talk about other things of which we don’t have personal experience (like, oh, lesbian or gay or hetero sex, according to your tastes) that way?
It’s a much, much, bigger and more subtle picture than I think folks realize. But BDsM does not automatically translate as guilty, sick, ashamed, jaded, bored, unable to take pleasure in the “normal” healthy ways. The players I know are smart, creative, subtle, funny, and fun. They care about having a good (and not always sexual) time with their playmates; they are responsible, respectful, and alert.
It’s not all what you see on “CSI” or in movies with serial killers who have to torture people to get off, and then wear their skins or something. Jeez louise. And while sure, there’s some overlap with the D&D/SCA/RenFest crowd, there are a lot of kinky people who don’t own a single pair of leather pants or historical garb.
>so inane a pursuit as orgasm
Orgasms: not inane. Not even slightly.
BDSM can be about a lot of things. It can act as a kind of erotic psychodrama. It can be a sheer adrenaline high. (there are a lot of different “highs,” or “headspaces,” some of which have nothing to do with power dynamics. And some do, of course). Some people are attracted to the theatrical aspect, D&D if you like, yes. (Of course some people make better theatre than others; but then again, party/club circuit aside, this isn’t really about how it appears to an audience). For some people it’s a way of accessing the spiritual, even as vanilla sex can be. (”Radical Ecstasy” by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy talks about this well). For some of us female tops in particular, it’s a way of harnessing power.
Ultimately, though, it’s about getting off. And while I think it’s useful to really look at what turns us on, and why, I really do balk at the suggestion that because it’s sexual, it’s frivolous.
Indri:
Some people may not feel comfortable discussing their past with BDSM. I worked as a dom and have to agree with most of the critiques of BDSM that people have listed. I personally was fed up/disgusted with it 13 years ago and still am.
I think people may be missing the cause-and-effect.
Part of the reason there’s so much more communication regarding BDSM scenes and so much more emphasis on active consent is because BDSM can so easily be misread or misinterpreted as (or possibly even slide into) abuse. Therefore, it’s in the participants’ self-interest to be extremely explicit about what they’re okay with and what they consent to and that everything be okay, so that there can be no misunderstanding. “This kind of touch is okay, that kind isn’t. Saying foo means stop everything this minute.” I think that kind of negotiation started as a form of self-defense out of (quite legitimate) fear of prosecution.
Because the actions taken in so-called vanilla sex are not seen as inherently abusive by mainstream society, participants don’t feel the same need for negotiation and explicit consent. It’s quite easy for people in the heat of the moment to slide from first to third, because there aren’t as many risks if somebody goes too far and the other objects.
Amp has a thread about women who don’t recognize when they’re being raped, and even when women are pushed past the point of consent, date rape is extremely difficult to prosecute. This gives the pushier party less cause for concern and less reason to take precautions than in BDSM situations.
I *wish* more people would apply the standards of communication and consent that I’ve seen in the BDSM scene to other facets of life. [One of the reasons I liked hanging around with scene-folk was because I felt so safe. Heck, once in a public gathering in a mall food court, somebody made a joke about tickling me. Before I finished my objection, three other people got between me and the possible-tickler, to make sure nothing happened against my consent. Now sure, not every group/experience is perfect, but I saw much more consideration for that kind of thing among people aware of safe,sane,consentual than outside it.]
Just my two cents…
Dollop, I really try not to disapprove of anybody’s lifestyle. I’ll pretty much accept anyone unless they do something to me that I deem as a personal affront. What I’m trying to point out is that none of us are really as unique as we think we are, except to our own selves. What is assimilation but confining to the norms of a selected society? Isn’t anyone who practices any lifestyle choice by dressing in the accepted way of that lifestyle, practicing the codes of that particular lifestyle, acting in the same way as most of the proponents of that particular lifestyle, assimilating to be part of that culture? I guess I’m trying to advocate being an individual. I know that people will point out that by participating in any frowned upon scene, they are expressing their individuallity, but my experience seems to point out that most scenes adhere to a stricter sense of uniformallity, assimilation than just being who you are. By not accepting anything as the true way, we are better able to accept everyone no matter what way they are.
So it seems as if we have a cadre of folks who are unequivicollay stating that a community which encourages men to act on their fantasies of rape and torture of women is not in any way dangerous or unhealthy, and is just good clean fun.
*shrug* There’s really no point in trying to argue against people with that stance.
I’d just like to point out something that has been strangely overlooked. My partner, BitingBeaver’s experience with BDSM. I linked it originally too, but it must have fallen through the cracks when I screwed up my links.
She consented at first, too. She consented even when she realized it wasn’t what she signed up for. I’m sure everyone will recognize that she endured hideous abuse cloaked by “sexuality”. Is it really so great a leap to assume that there are women in the semi-public “scene” finding themselves in a similar situation? The fact is, many of the women I met in the “scene” WERE in a similar situation.
I’m pretty sure nobody but the most callous of assholes would suggest that what my partner went through was NOT abuse and rape, even though she was confused about the entire affair up until the very end. My fear is that, if she had been involved in the semi-public “scene” rather than her own bedroom, the same situation would be called something different, and she would never have managed to disentangle her real emotions from what she was “supposed” to be feeling due to the community dynamic I’m seeing reflected in this very thread.
That’s my fear, and it’s a big fear because I’ve seen it happen.
Wow, taught little post you wrote there…and dead on. It made me giggle nervously knowing the reactions you’d get to it, but I also was involuntarily nodding my head in agreement.
“I just think that a complete lack of all dominance structures in society is both impossible to achieve and a vision of dullness.”
Well, that’s an honest opinion, but also a depressing example of why patriarchy is going to be so hard to dismantle.
I realise the person who wrote it was referring to sexual practice specifically, but the sad fact is that this attitude can and does carry over for lot of people into different parts of their lives. Which is the problem with BDSM. Once you’ve got the idea of eroticised dominance, you can’t expect to neatly contain it within a structure of sex and play. It’s going to come out both in sexual abuse and other forms of social dominance.
“So it seems as if we have a cadre of folks who are unequivicollay stating that a community which encourages men to act on their fantasies of rape and torture of women is not in any way dangerous or unhealthy, and is just good clean fun.”
Yup. Just to underline what you are talking about there - MEN’S RAPE FANTASIES.
It’s all very well talking about women fantasising about rape - the only person they are going to hurt is themselves, but men fantasising about raping women and acting it out with partners is something entirely different. Maybe if rape and sexual assault were unusual crimes, hearing about men fantasising about this wouldn’t be a problem but it’s quite clear that there are plenty of men having these fantasies and then going out and acting on them.
If anybody is doubting the part that fantasy plays in real rape. you only need to Google rape, fantasy and FBI and there is plenty of information on it. Anbody who thinks that all fantasies are harmless is an idiot.
BritGirlSF:
I think that this has it backwards. Sadomasochistic pornography is not taking “themes” from the “scene” and making “facsimiles” of them. Sadomasochistic pornography predated anything like the “scene” you’re involved in (going back, as it does, to de Sade and Sacher-Masoch). Of course, if people try to mechanically apply what they know about sadomasochistic pornography to the scene that you’re involved in they may say any number of things that are ignorant or selective. But I think that a responsible discussion of BDSM as a cultural and social phenomenon does have to discuss not only the scene that you’re defending, but also pornography (both the stories that it tells, and also the “scene” involved in the real people used in its production); it also has to discuss people involved in forms of BDSM who haven’t joined any sort of formal (or even informal) “scene”. The kind of community defense mechanisms that Dim talks about are worrisome when they obscure the fact that we’re talking about something broader than just the community that you’ve found.
As for Twisty, who was explicitly talking about the “official” BDSM scene and not the phenomenon of BDSM as a whole, well, she didn’t say that the scene defended by BDSM defenders was scary, dangerous, or abusive. She said that it was self-important and dorky.
Lis Riba:
Right, I understand why the necessities of BDSM (in particular) are supposed to demand much more explicit discussion of boundaries and consent, and I’m sure that it does often work out that way in much of the “official” BDSM scene. (My own concerns about BDSM lie elsewhere.) My point is that this situation isn’t unchangeable; there’s nothing about so-called “vanilla” sex that prevents communication between partners and explicit care about consent. Talking as if it were just a choice between communication-rich kinky sex and wordless, manipulative non-kinky sex — which is what Aero was doing above, even if that’s not what s/he intended — confines the issue unnecessarily. And that this isn’t something that feminist BDSM critics are unaware of, or sanguine about.
“I *wish* more people would apply the standards of communication and consent that I’ve seen in the BDSM scene to other facets of life.”
And I like my communication and consent to be free of the fear and threat of pain. Any communication directly relating to BDSM acts/practices is premised on pain or excessive dominance/humiliation. You aren’t using your communication to communicate — you’re using it to stave off going too far.
Okay, no. Sade and Sacher-Masoch didn’t invent anything either. Sade in particular doesn’t have much to do with today’s leather scene(s) (there is no one “official scene” that I’m aware of), seeing as how he was mainly about nonconsent. “Venus in Furs” is one guy’s fantasy. A common enough fantasy, then and now, but he didn’t make it up either. And if he’d never published that book people would still come up with similar scenarios all on their very own.
People have been eroticizing power, pain, and various fetishes since time immemorial. Popular fantasies tend to reflect the cultural zeitgeist, sure (in a funhouse sort of way).
As for today’s scene(s), people take inspiration from our Victorian legacy, the military, Catholic iconography…Cartoon Network. And of course the rich lode of material mined from our own childhoods and teenage years. Among many other sources.
And I agree that the negotiation and other communication skills used in BDSM should be used far more often in the rest of the world, erotically and otherwise.
Dim: I’m very sorry for your partner’s experience. I feel a little funny saying it to you rather than to her, herself, but I’m assuming she’s okay with you speaking for her here. I validate that BB had a bad experience of BDSM and does not want any truck with it. It would be nice if y’all could recognize that other people have different experiences, and that ours are also valid.
And for the record, there *is* a recognized difference between abuse and BDSM, and while there are plenty of assholes within the scene(s), there are also plenty of healthy, evolved people who would immediately understand that what BB went through was coercion by any other name.
Here is a link to various pages talking about this: BDSM vs. abuse, and specifically abuse within the BDSM community.
http://www.evilmonk.org/A/abuse00.cfm
This page in particular speaks for me:
One of the problems that pretty well any person interested in BDSM comes across soner or later is “When is it BDSM and when is it abuse?”
Most of us have a gut feeling about that, but BDSM being what it is, you may find your gut feeling and mine are not even close.
There is sometimes a confusion between personal limits “No way would I do that!” and objective limits “No way should anyone do that!”.
…What is abuse in a BDSM context? I offer these possible guidelines.
In no particular order. I’m not really talking about one-off meetings, but about relationships.
1) Is your play Safe, Sane, and Consensual?
——————————————-
Safe: both people know the risks and have minimised them to both people’s satisfaction.
Sane: Both are capable of knowing what they are getting into, and are capable of informed consent Consensual: Both consent to what is happening and have a reasonable idea of what they are consenting to. The consent is free and not coerced by fear of something nasty happening, whether that nasty is physical harm or the fear of the partner leaving, or of being called a wimp or an unskilled top or whatever.
2) Is your play informed by Trust, Care, and Respect?
——————————————————
Trust: Your partner behaves predictably, you aren’t walking on eggshells around them not knowing if they will go ballistic at something that was OK yesterday. You know what they will do, and you are happy with what they will do.
Care: Your partner cares about your welfare, your emotional and physical wellbeing. Even “slaves” should be cared about.
Respect: Your partner respects you as a human being, they respect your choices, your abilities. They should value you as more than a convenient body.
3) Does the good outweigh the bad?
———————————-
In any BDSM relationship there will be times when the bad feelings seem overwhelming. But if that seems to be always happening, then there is a problem. You may often have bad moments, bad days. But you shouldn’t be having mostly bad times, and you should be getting enough good times.
4) Are you getting your needs met?
———————————-
Each partner has the right to get what they need out of the relationship. Are you getting what you need? Not just BDSM needs, (although they are important) but physical and emotional needs as well. If you are getting almost all it may be OK, but if you look at what you need and you aren’t getting it… then that’s a danger sign.
(Be careful about distinguishing desire from need)
***
Easier said than done, of course, but then abuse always is a sticky area, and difficult to recognize, even without the leather overlay.
What I have a problem with is laying the blame for abuse at the feet of BDSM, when the fact is that there are plenty of horribly abusive vanilla relationships (of all genders and orientations) as well as functional, healthy relationships that include power play (emphasis on *play*).
Q Grrl: That’s simply not correct. People negotiate within BDSM for *what they want* as well as their limits.
Belladame, how can they be negotiating for what they want without simultaneously negotiating for what they don’t want: being pushed beyond their comfort levels. Pain and the fear of excessive pain is so deeply embedded in these negotiations that it has become transparent and becomes “what someone wants” rather than “let’s avoid excess”.
belledame222:
Well, that’s mighty big of you.
Look, experiences aren’t “valid” or “invalid.” Experiences just are. There’s a question here, though, about what some people’s personal experiences with BDSM, in and out of the formalized “scene,” mean. That’s not necessarily just a matter of “Well, you had your experiences and I had mine.”
Part of the question here is whether it’s just some big accident that there are plenty of assholes in the scene in addition to the people you’re comfortable with, or whether there’s something about the scene (or about BDSM itself) that encourages that.
(And before you mention it, I know that there abuse and coercion happen in non-BDSM sexual relationships too. Most feminist critics of BDSM do think that there are plenty of things about normative sexuality in our society that encourage that, and criticize them at length. Part of what we are asking y’all for is not to just stop applying that level of scrutiny and criticism when it’s your own sexual “scene” that’s in question.)
Q Grrl:
Brava. This helped clarify what it is that bugs me so much when BDSM advocates are talking about the supreme importance of “negotiation,” in particular, in BDSM sex. Consent is unilateral, based what each partner wants to happen to her own body. “Negotiation” over “boundaries” is something that warring states do to work out territorial claims in order to avoid a conflict. One party suggests that they take X but give Y, the other says they want to take Z instead of Y, they either hash out a tit-for-tat compromise or else they get the guns and fight until their positions in the negotiation changes, and then they try again with a bit more quid on the table and bit less quo.
Sex shouldn’t be like that.
Oh dear, I am not even sure if I should post this comment and incite continued BDSM conversation. But I am going to share my very limited experience with the BDSM scene from an outsider’s perspective.
I have a couple of friends who I think either are or may have been involved in the scene, but I have never discussed it with them explicitly. In my area, it seems that the “fetish” subgroup seem to overlap somewhat with the “goths” and I and some friends of mine occasionally go out dancing to some goth clubs. I’m in my thirties and hanging out with the kids probably makes me some type of loser, but I’m fine with that. I go to dance and nobody bothers anybody for the most part. Anyway, a guy at one of my friend’s workplaces recognized her from a club and apparently felt that she would be an “open-minded person” and proceeded to share with her details about his particpation (as a Dom) in his BSDM club. Stuff that was clearly inappropriate in a workplace setting — to the extent that I told my friend that I thought it was probably sexual harrassment.
Anyway, I wound up meeting this guy at a club with my friend and he immediately set off my Creep! alarm. He also proceeded to piss off my friend by invading her personal space while dancing. So, my thinking is: this guy is accepted as a Dominant in his scene. So he’s supposed to be trustworthy and sensitive to issues of personal boundaries right? At least in theory? Instead, he makes me feel creeped out and behaves in ways that are not respectful of appropriate boundaries, and fails to realize he is pissing people off. Am I going to his “scene” any time soon? Don’t think so.
My other experience with the “scene” was with a video that a band projected during their performance at a goth/industrial festival. (Warning! Gross!) It depicted a (obviously fake) scene in which sexily dressed nurses disembowled a woman (naked except for bondage bandages) tied to a stretcher in front of a hooded and tied up man with an erection. Like they were sacrificing her to his penis. For his part, he got a cut down his penis with a scalpel before one of the nurses went down on him. So, they torture and (presumably) kill the woman, but the man gets a tiny cut on his dick? I walked out on that band. I had to push through the crowd to do it, and I didn’t try to do it unobtrusively. But, in a venue that probably had about 80 people packed in, not a single other person left that I saw, including the friends I was with. I think some people were probably distressed, but they were more interested in being “cool” and not looking “uptight.”
Screw that. No way am I letting anyone who thinks a video like that is “cool and transgressive” near me sexually.
Quoth Belledame222 in #60: I really do balk at the suggestion that because it’s sexual, it’s frivolous.
As somebody who has had an orgasm, I believe I am qualified to opine that it is scarcely the pinnacle of human achievement.
I too have problems with the idea that there is not communication during “vanilla†sex, because if there isn’t a lot of communication, I think that you’re doing it wrong! I’ve been working on a new workshop (due to extreme interest) on “sexy consensual talk†because it’s much sexier to ask if you can get someone off then it is to shove your hand down their pants!
I don’t agree with the idea that there’s no communication during vanilla sex. That’s just stupid. Of course couples who aren’t into BDSM communicate about their desires. I’m gonna go ahead and assume that all the non-BDSM commenters here do. And of course feminists who have critiqued BDSM are very interested in meaningful, evolving consent–they criticize BDSM in part because they believe it either doesn’t involve meaningful, evolving consent or doesn’t include enough protection for same for the people participating.
That is the insistence that I disagree with. As BGSF said, it’s not difficult to have these kinds of negotiations at all, or difficult to find people who are wholeheartedly invested in them. I don’t hear much, “You don’t know me! YOU DON’T KNOW!” I’ve heard a lot of frustration from BDSM’ers, primarily bottoms, who are trying to get across that they are very insistent on respect and meaningful consent, and that the people they play with are too.
Of course there’s potential for abuse. Of course people are vulnerable. Of course the patriarchy has its finger in this pie, as much as in all the others, and of course the people who practice BDSM grew up in a patriarchal society. But there’s also potential for careful, respectful, safe play. We’re not all either abusers or abuse survivors stuck in a poisonous cycle. I hope no one will think I’m hypersensitive and self-deluded if I say I’m really offended by that assertion.
I’m not bothered by the kind of mocking that Trekkies, LARP geeks, goths, or boy-band enthusiasts have to deal with. Lord knows I’ve said some pretty nasty things about scenesters and the associated apparel and in-community etiquette, not to mention the incestuous relationships and the gossipy interactions.*
But that’s not what’s being said here, is it? The comments in this thread have described practitioners as (lessee) sexually stunted, unimaginative, hopelessly fetishistic, emotionally scarred, abusive, and complacent in abuse. Not just some of us, mind. Defensive? Moi?
Qgrrl:And I like my communication and consent to be free of the fear and threat of pain. Any communication directly relating to BDSM acts/practices is premised on pain or excessive dominance/humiliation. You aren’t using your communication to communicate — you’re using it to stave off going too far.
I see. So when I tell my vanilla partner that I’m not comfortable with penetration, the negotiation isn’t meaningful because it takes place under the fear and threat of rape? Am I not using my communication to communicate, but merely to stave off going too far?
This makes sense if there’s any doubt that the boundary, whatever and wherever it is, will not be respected; that would constitute the “threat” you’re referring to.
Chris:Part of the question here is whether it’s just some big accident that there are plenty of assholes in the scene in addition to the people you’re comfortable with, or whether there’s something about the scene (or about BDSM itself) that encourages that.
(And before you mention it, I know that there abuse and coercion happen in non-BDSM sexual relationships too. Most feminist critics of BDSM do think that there are plenty of things about normative sexuality in our society that encourage that, and criticize them at length. Part of what we are asking y’all for is not to just stop applying that level of scrutiny and criticism when it’s your own sexual “scene†that’s in question.)
Is that what you’re seeing? I’m hearing more, “Don’t assume that we don’t apply that level of scrutiny and criticism,” than, “We don’t have to deal with this questions, because BDSM takes place within a magic circle of equality and care and kittens and rainbows, Amen.”
Q Grrl:
Belladame, how can they be negotiating for what they want without simultaneously negotiating for what they don’t want: being pushed beyond their comfort levels.
…And Chris: Brava. This helped clarify what it is that bugs me so much when BDSM advocates are talking about the supreme importance of “negotiation,†in particular, in BDSM sex. Consent is unilateral, based what each partner wants to happen to her own body. “Negotiation†over “boundaries†is something that warring states do to work out territorial claims in order to avoid a conflict. One party suggests that they take X but give Y, the other says they want to take Z instead of Y, they either hash out a tit-for-tat compromise or else they get the guns and fight until their positions in the negotiation changes, and then they try again with a bit more quid on the table and bit less quo.
Sex shouldn’t be like that.
Okay. I get what you’re saying now.
Oh, dear. I’ve used the word “negotiation” frequently, but I’ve never meant to describe, “You agree not to hurt me in this way, and I’ll quietly submit to being hurt in this way.” I just use it to describe a very elaborate discussion about what’s about to happen. It always has been unilateral. I tell them what I don’t want to happen, and they agree, full stop. I tell them what I’m especially interested in, and they talk about what they aren’t comfortable doing to me. Then we’ll talk about exactly what we’d like to happen, within those parameters, so that we can confirm that these things are okay with both of us and so that no one is surprised. If anything else occurs to me as unwanted, I say so and they agree, full stop. If I change my mind at any point after that, I can stop everything immediately for any reason.
*I shouldn’t bash this tendency, really; everyone knowing everyone is one of the ways people stay safe.
Twisty said: As somebody who has had an orgasm, I believe I am qualified to opine that it is scarcely the pinnacle of human achievement.
No disagreements there. I’m a big fan of them myself, but they’re hardly the solution to world hunger. But to cast sex and BDSM as merely the pursuit of orgasm is quite the shallow ideal. Sex and BDSM are about creating and furthering intimacy. If pursuing intimacy in whatever way works for any one person is inane to anyone else, well screw everyone else.
Rad Geek said: Noting this in passing, I move on to ask: if one of the benefits of “kinky†sex is supposed to be the greater level of communication, what’s to stop you from communicating with your partner before, during, and after so-called “vanilla†sex? It seems like the alleged benefit here is not all that closely connected with BDSM and other forms of “kink.†So if that’s what it is that gets you off, why the specific draw to fetishes that have nothing essentially to do with it?
I was remarking mostly on the difficulties of people understanding the consensuality of BDSM. And as others have said, there *is* an unfortunate lack of communication surrounding stereotypical vanilla sex. I certainly hope that changes.
And the specific draw to fetishes? Well, that’s a rather personal question. But, why do you like your favorite color? Why are you attracted to who you’re attracted to? *shrug* Is there any definitive way to answer those other than, “It makes me happy”? (Actually the simplified answer is it gives me an adrenaline and endorphin rush. Same reason I like roller coasters and running.)
Geez, it’s just a sexual preference, I don’t see why nonBDSMers so enjoy getting their panties in a twist over it all. You’re making it into an abnormality and feeding into the phenomena of those who proclaim, “Look at me, I’m so WEIRD!” Kinda pissy to those of us who would like everyone to fuck off and just accept us for normal.
Crys T said:
“I just think that a complete lack of all dominance structures in society is both impossible to achieve and a vision of dullness.â€
Well, that’s an honest opinion, but also a depressing example of why patriarchy is going to be so hard to dismantle.
I realise the person who wrote it was referring to sexual practice specifically…
Uhhhh, nope, I was referring to all of life, not just sex, since I took Twisty’s meaning to be in reference to life in general. A total lack of dominance structures in EVERY facet of life? Yeah, I’m still going to go with impossible and dull. Or impossible and chaotic since a complete lack implies anarchy, does it not?
As for the rape fantasies of men issue…It’s similar to how women don’t *actually* have rape fantasies, there’s just (unfortunately) no better term available. Although I heartily agree that a lot needs to be done to educate men about date rape and the like. But most men who have “rape fantasies” don’t actually want to harm and scare a woman, the fantasy is just a way to express strong sexual urges.
In which Rad Geek apparently invalidates many people’s sex lives:
One party suggests that they take X but give Y, the other says they want to take Z instead of Y, they either hash out a tit-for-tat compromise or else they get the guns and fight until their positions in the negotiation changes, and then they try again with a bit more quid on the table and bit less quo.
Sex shouldn’t be like that.
My experience is that each partner holds veto power. If Partner A wants something and Partner B doesn’t, then it doesn’t happen and vice versa. If there’s a significant disagreement, there’s hardly a drawing of guns and a fight to the death. It’s more of a diplomatic, “Here is my position. If at any time you wish to compromise, please let me know.” It’s hardly insidious. Well, maybe it is if you consider, “Try this new food, you’ll like it!” insidious. The whole point of compromising is to make both parties happy which I’ve heard is usually the point of sex, too.
Cyanea–
Experience number 1 sounds like an asshole. And a BDSM club is different from a real community, so its likely quite a few others around considered that guy an asshole too.
Experience number 2 sounds like the general wankery that is found in the goth/industrial scene. Which is not necessarily the BDSM scene.
Hmmm…well, I’m gonna talk a little bit about my experience being a sex worker. For a while I was a phone ho, and a pretty good one, too. One of my personas was an 18-year-old girl named Mandy, and for some reason Mandy attracted a HUGE amount of men who wanted to be dominated by her. Why was this? I don’t know, and I’m ashamed to say I didn’t really deconstruct it, either.
There’s been a lot of talk on this thread about BDSM in which men are the doms, but what about when the script is flipped? Imagine a scenario in which a guy wants to be fucked by an innocent-looking young girl wearing a strap-on. Why? Who the hell knows? Or what if he wants her to put on stilletos, straddle his waist, dig the heels of her shoes in his chest, and mock his dick size? And what if what he really wants is to be pissed on in the middle of all this? And why such a dichotomy between a very innocent-looking young girl and the horrible things these guys wanted her to do to them?
My co-workers who had more adult personas didn’t have nearly as many sub guys as Mandy did. These guys ate the humiliation up (I should say they licked it up, off the floor, while begging Miss Mandy’s forgiveness for their sorry inch-long penises).
Now I know that a scene between a phone ho (or any ho) and her client is a world unto itself. Chances of these guys finding real-life Mandy’s were probably close to non-existent. But why? Why the attraction to the humiliation?
What made it a challenge for me is that my natural tendencies are much more submissive, so I really had to do my research and acquire some serious acting skills.
So I guess I’m wondering, while there has been a lot of discussion of the patriarchal construct of BDSM, what does it mean when the sub is a man? What does it mean when his dom fantasy is a young, virginal girl? Are they thinking back to humiliating high school experiences? Maybe it would take somebody much deeper than I am to make sense of it. I just thought of it as an acting job and a paycheck. And a learning experience.
Sex is so fucking weird, to put it mildly. I can’t say too much about fantasies or what gets people off. Because even so-called “vanilla sex” comes loaded with what the people involved are thinking, fantasizing, wishing, feeling. And unless your partner is extremely trusting or honest, chances are you don’t know what she or he is responding to in the act, and what brings the deepest pleasure. You might be surprised.