This post contains some fucked up shit. Please be warned and think carefully about whether you want to read it.
Everyone knows I went to peep some of the shit on Kink.com as a part of the research I did for my BDSM posts. I don’t make the claim that what goes on on their sites is representative of what goes on in the typical real-life BDSM relationship (I mean, fuck, how many people can afford to buy all that shit?), and I’m not really planning to discuss that website in relation to the wide world of BDSM, but I feel it necessary to discuss what I saw on that site.
I’m not easily thrown into a state of despair about the world unless I’ve been watching A Double Shot at Love or Bad Girls Club for over three hours (posts to come), but send me a story about human trafficking, about the abuse that women in war zones suffer, about the rampant torture of children by rape tourists in Southeast Asia, or about a submissive woman’s “journey” (brainwashing) and I’m likely to have to go lie down and think about moving to Mars for a few hours. And, of course, looking at images of women being tortured had the same effect, differing only in that it has yet to abate and it’s been over a month.
For those of you lucky enough to have never seen anything those piles of shit at Kink.com have put out, I’ll just characterize it as torture mixed with the most degrading sex acts possible. The variety of cruel and bizarre devices, contraptions, machines, and objects that the producers have accumulated for use on the women featured on the site is terrifyingly mind-boggling, and the entire vibe more closely approximates the contents of a nightmare than anything I’ve ever seen while awake: the logos for the site are designed to look like titles for a horror movie; the page backgrounds are dominated by black, gray, and brown to the extent that they remind one of that stupid Tool video; and the videos are nearly all taped in the site’s building at the Armory, a pretty dungeonesque joint by the looks of it. The text describing each of the sites is fucking petrifying. An example from the Device Bondage site:
Device Bondage is a BDSM sex Website with the best porn around. Our naked women in BDSM play are whipped, tied up, chained, fucked, and humiliated. Amazing things that happen on our site include kinky sex with tit torture, steel bondage, hard nipples, nipple clamps, rope bondage, girls being caned, torture sex [What in the FUCK is "torture sex"? ], girls being spanked, leather bondage, and other BDSM play.
Girls are also pulled in and out of cages, their tongues clamped, their bodies pinned, and their arms and legs strapped. We also have contraptions used in countries such as China for torture. Our girls like to be tied up with leather belts and harnesses, spanked hard, punished, and humiliated. When the girls are done spreading wide for their bondage sex shoot, they have red asses, intense pleasure, and big smiles.
There’s footage and photos of naked women locked in cages too small for rabbits, of broken skin and blood, of women being waterboarded and subjected to other near-drowning tortures, of naked women being humiliated and tortured in public. Machines, metal, wood, electrodes, hooks, needles, hoods, and every other possible thing some sick motherfucker could come up with to use to torture a woman are in evidence on one or more of Kink.com’s sites.
Each of the galleries that the sites use to sell their videos features a shot or two of the woman’s face looking absolutely terror-stricken. And it’s those photos that bother me the most. I know why they’re there; the people who pay money to watch the shit on these sites need to see that the woman who they’re watching get tortured is hurting and is scared because she doesn’t know what is going to happen to her next.
The fact that the site owners always include a shot of the woman after the shoot looking happy doesn’t matter. The men who go to these sites aren’t there to revel in women’s pleasure, they’re there to see women tortured. They’re not watching public humiliation videos to fantasize about iconoclasm and bucking societal norms, they’re there to get boners thinking about degrading and humiliating human beings. These sites aren’t about “exploring our dark sides,” they’re about giving free reign to the sickest of human desires, desires that are inculcated by a sexually repressed and guilt-ridden society that has yet to figure out how to deal with the detritus of religious dogma and has thus intertwined fear and hatred with sex to create the misogynistic shit heap we now live in. This shit ain’t revolutionary, it’s so fucking obvious and stupid that I’d laugh if it didn’t look so much like RAPE. If exploring your “dark side” entails wanking to women being tortured, it might be best to leave it unexplored. Or kill yourself.
You know what I don’t want to do? Live in a world where people jerk off to women being subjected to “contraptions used in countries such as China for torture.” Know what else I don’t want to do? Listen to women (or men) tell me that the women who participate in the creation of these videos for these disgusting motherfuckers to jerk off to do so because the shit feels “amazing.” Nor do I want to hear how subversive the people who are into this shit are because they “explore the dark side.” First off, what person over the age of sixteen talks about “exploring the dark side”? Seriously. And why does “exploring the dark side” have to be such an unimaginative, tired, boring, intellectually insulting, misogynistic cliche?
But besides the ridiculous aspect of someone fancying themselves a revolutionary because they get boners from seeing women hurt or get orgasms from being hurt when we live in a society that encourages that shit like UFC encourages tribal tattoos, it’s pretty goddamned obscene. The way I see it, if you think you’re punk for getting off on reenacting the kinds of abuses that real women and children in this world suffer on a daily basis (and thus mocking their suffering), you can go fuck yourself.
Did I mention that Howard Stern is a fan of Kink.com? The end.
933 Comments
February 7, 2009 at 2:56 AM
Sick motherfuckers! Absolutely fucking sick!
ND, you need to take care of yourself. I wouldn’t go looking at that stuff anymore. You don’t need those images in your head. I have some things in my head that I wish weren’t there. Although, I’m sure the creature that it happened to probably wishes even more than I that it never happened.
Sometimes I think I’m going to lose it completely and I have to take a break from feminism. Just read mystery novels, eat comfort foods, soak in the tub, and pretend there’s no patriarchy out there.
Please be careful and take care of yourself.
February 7, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Yeah, I’m taking a permanent break from that shit, but I needed to say some shit about what I saw last month when I was researching this BDSM business. Luckily it’s over. Kink.com is dead to me now.
February 7, 2009 at 3:32 AM
No offense, but I can’t even read your descriptions of this crap for more than a few paragraphs at a time. It’s really, really disgusting. REALLY DISGUSTING. I have no idea how you can cope with examining it all, but thanks.
Off to take a shower, seriously.
February 7, 2009 at 3:39 AM
I know. It was heinous to write it, and it was hard to figure out how to expose exactly what’s going on on the sites without giving them traffic or posting actual imagery. It’s been bothering me for weeks now and I felt it necessary to draw attention to just how egregious it is, but I’m sure it’s pretty unsavory to read. Sorry. I think my BDSM research is going to have to be limited to reading blogs in the future, though the two I posted excerpts from yesterday weren’t much less worrisome than Kink.com is.
February 7, 2009 at 3:50 AM
If my ‘master’ tied me up until numb, whipped me until raw and caged me until red in my home, what legal system would not consider that abuse and jail the sadistic fuck?
Can someone tell me why the fuck all of that torture is considered acceptable and legal if my ‘master’ does it for sexual pleasure?
This is not a matter of freedom of speech; This is a matter of freedom from being tortured by sadistic fucks. If our legal system does not allow someone to consent to torture, then a perverted as fuck site like Kink.com needs to be shut down.
February 7, 2009 at 5:23 AM
A relatively minor point, but it just occurred to me that if the world were okay, the phrase “torture sex” would be an uncomfortable but perplexing oxymoron.
February 7, 2009 at 7:01 AM
Nope. Not defending Kink.com. Can’t, won’t and would rather see them buried forever than even look for something to try and defend them on.
I think the smiles at the end are possibly the most dangerous part– “See? Any *real* woman (as in, not a prudish, uptight, frigid etc.) in touch with her sexuality secrets wants to be raped and tortured. She’ll thank you later!”
Ugh. I need to go shower. Pity I can’t do the same for the *inside* of my head.
February 7, 2009 at 9:15 AM
I thought that was there to blur the line between all fun and games kink and torture porn. Though, it does seem a bit pointless, because people watching torture porn are doing it because it is torture porn.
If it makes you feel better, there is a sizeable minority of sites about men being tortured. Eventually, we might get true equality, with people of all races, genders and creed having painful things done to their genitals. That’s sort of progress, I suppose.
If you want really sick, though, I once saw a site advertising a scene involving a vaginal pear. Had to be lying, of course, given what the thing does (google it at your peril, though it wasn’t originally just for use on women, the church could use it on a variety of orifices), but pretending to be doing that for real for someone’s enjoyment…
February 7, 2009 at 12:48 PM
“The fact that the site owners always include a shot of the woman after the shoot looking happy doesn’t matter.”
I rather suspect it does matter to the customers, or they wouldn’t bother with it. Just as with rape, it’s important to the dehumanization and humiliation of a woman to be able to “prove” she “wanted it.” This neatly absolves the sick fuck jacking off to this stuff of all blame.
And it comes last because I can imagine a guy having an orgasm and _then_ being a bit worried about/disgusted with himself for enjoying this stuff (at least at first). That post-orgasm shot of the women smiling is his palate cleanser.
Jesus, I can’t think about this anymore. I hate the world enough on good days….
February 7, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Can I say again, for UK readers. This stuff is now ILLEGAL to possess in the UK. Please don’t look at it.
February 7, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Oh and Zelda – again, any act that causes ‘more than a trifling injury – breaks the skin basically – is illegal in the UK, consent or no consent, unless it’s a legally recognised exception like medical treatment or body piercing. BDSM sex is not a legally recognised exception.
February 7, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Oh my god. I don’t know how you managed to look at it, ND.
I don’t know how anyone could defend this shit. It is pure misogyny- there is no way depicting women being tortured to get men off can be seen as anything else. I am terrified of the men who watch this shit. They are dangerous. I know this too well.
February 7, 2009 at 5:06 PM
They’re defending it alright, but on their own blogs. I’ve been over to read some of it and it’s pretty bizarre.
February 7, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Of course the women are smiling afterwards -a) they are being paid (they don’t create it BTW, the scumbag sadist men who film and produce it are the creators) b) they are probably incredibly happy and relieved it’s over and c) the producers make them do it so we blame them for what happened to them and blame them for apparently promoting it. Or you know maybe the film the after-interview before the rape and torture.
This isn’t about fantasy any more than bear-baiting or boxing are fantasies. There are a lot of evil sick fuck men out there who enjoy seeing real women tortured. Those are real experiences they are watching, not fantasies.
This is the reality for women who have been raped at Kink.com:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/blog/2008/01/report_of_assault_at_kinkcom_a.html#more
Also let’s name names. Peter Acworth is the guy who owns it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/magazine/29kink.t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1
February 7, 2009 at 8:18 PM
I have been in discussion the last few days with men who defend PUA/game interaction with women, and I have divided them into two main groups. There’s the guy who wants power and control over women and then there’s the guy who wants power and control over women and wants to make them pay for everything that has ever made him feel emasculated. The images you describe, I see them behind the words of these guys, the way they talk about women. It’s very unsettling to realize that the thought processes that lead to this kind of treatment of women are alive in so many men—and those men are recruiting others to think the same way they do.
February 7, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Uh, there’s no defense for that site. Even as someone who plays around with BDSM, what’s on there is vile, misogynistic and makes me need brain-bleach.
I’m just saying, I hope you don’t consider that representative.
February 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM
delphyne – Thanks for pointing out a problem with my language. It didn’t really communicate what I wanted it to and it placed too much blame on the women rather than Acworth and co. Also, thank you for the links.
Screaming Lemur – Thank you as well. The title doesn’t convey my sarcasm as well as I’d hoped, so I changed it. (And while I don’t consider it representative, it does send up some red flags with regard to what men are doing getting into BDSM.)
February 7, 2009 at 10:12 PM
A Defense:
Speaking as someone that has sampled a lot of different sources of BDSM porn, Kink.com is more creative and less cliche than the median. By far.
P.S., A Second Defense: Kink.com doesn’t shame women for their sexuality.
P.P.S., I’m pretty sure that my partner, having read this, is going to make me beat her next weekend, so you’ve got some propaganda by deed blowback going on now.
P.P.P.S., it seems strange for you to complain about people jerking off to this material, then tell them to go fuck themselves for finding it “revolutionary” (I’m not going to defend that claim, although I think Michel Foucault did a pretty decent job of it). I think you have to pick one or the other.
February 7, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Weak sauce.
1 – Who gives a shit if it’s more creative? If I come up with a more creative way than the next person to torture someone, do I really deserve a reward? Sorry, but that’s no defense. By the way, congratulations on being a connoisseur of images of women being tortured.
2 – You’re right: Kink.com doesn’t shame anyone for their sexuality, even when the sexuality they’re portraying deserves it. People torturing each other shouldn’t be a part of human sexuality. I’m all for women being free of the shame that society tries to attach to their enjoying sex, but this is not a freedom from that, it’s a result of it. If women weren’t ashamed of their sexuality, they probably wouldn’t develop the desire to be dominated (which removes the responsibility for liking sex from them), forced (same deal), or humiliated and hurt (which works as a sort of penance for enjoying sex). And who the fuck is Kink.com to speak for women’s sexuality anyway? I’m a woman, and I’m not too keen on anything that company’s got to say about female sexuality. Besides that, is the fact that they don’t shame women for their sexuality (as long as it’s the kind they can make money off of) really a defense for the fact that they put out torture porn? Nah brah.
3 – I have no idea what “propaganda by deed blowback” means. While you’re rewording that, go get a copy of a grammar book and have a look at the punctuation and capitalization chapter.
4 – I used the term “go fuck yourself” in its metaphorical sense. Who thinks of masturbation when someone tells them to fuck off? And do you really think that you’ve pointed out a logical flaw in my argument by bringing that up? Lame.
5 – Don’t bring up Foucault on my blog. He was a turgid embarrassment to the world’s intellectual tradition. His thoughts were a) not that original, b) totally incoherent, c) not all that interesting, and d) derived from his own self-absorption. But anyway, what does he have to do with this discussion? Pedophiles and people who are into morally questionable sex acts love Foucault because he makes it possible to relativise morality, but that wasn’t really the crux of what he had to say (though I doubt you’ve read and understood anything beyond his Wikipedia entry). If you’re going to bring him up in relation to BDSM I think you’ll lose the argument, because I could probably use his writings to show you that BDSM is a ritualized manifestation of power and that your talk of transgression is bullshit because it takes place within a hegemonic “discourse” about gender that you can’t see your way out of. But I wouldn’t do that, because I hate Foucault.
February 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM
All this talk about kink.com makes me think back to a thread at Feminism 101 about whether there can be feminist porn. One self-proclaimed “feminist” outright said that kink’s porn is feminist and ethical! Because they have the “models” smiling afterwards and they have standards. WHAT. I responded in that thread, and her defense was, essentially, “you’re just morally outraged, you prude; quit telling women what to do.” Same ol’, same ol’. I don’t know what to make of it except we, as a society, are deeply fucked up when someone who claims to be in favor of women’s sexual liberation calls kink.com feminist. Moving to Mars sounds like a good idea during such exchanges.
And, boy, Josh, your comment just takes the cake. “I’m pretty sure that my partner, having read this, is going to make me beat her next weekend”? So you have no agency in your relationship, no way to refuse to beat your girlfriend? Way to go not taking responsibility for YOUR BEHAVIOR, you fucking tool.
February 7, 2009 at 11:18 PM
1. Who gives a shit who gives a shit? We’re arguing on the internet, no one can be expected to really care.
You attacked them for being cliche and uncreative, I defended them from the attack because I felt like taking up your rather vague dare.
Also, thanks, I take some small pride in it. I know you meant it in a mean way, but sometimes recognition from one’s enemies is the best kind.
2. Kink.com incorporates varied sub-projects. Many of which are run by women who speak for their own sexuality and that of like-minded women. While I support your right to shame them for it I think that’s a dick move on your part.
Now, what I said isn’t a defense of their production of torture porn, but I’m not interested in defending that, at least not in a metaphorical sense. However, it is a more general parry and riposte of your argument that will matter to people whose opinions I care about.
3. Sorry, commas are a personal weakness.
I don’t care enough about you to explain terminology you could spend five minutes looking up on Wikipedia. Since you manifestly don’t care enough to spend five minutes looking up the terms, we should probably give up on having this argument.
4. Yes, I know. People who respond to obscenity by being smart-asses, obviously. No, I was just being a smart-ass. Lame, yes, but that’s the level of discourse I was working with.
5. Since I’m not allowed to bring up the subject of this point I won’t discuss it further.
February 7, 2009 at 11:29 PM
1 – There’s nothing creative about abusing women. What’d be creative is for someone to figure out a way to make porn that didn’t involve women being abused. But then I guess that wouldn’t be porn, would it? I’m your “enemy” because I have an opinion that doesn’t mesh with your patriarchal sexual desires? Great. And I’m sure you go around with a straight face telling people you’re pro-feminist. Just once I’d like to hear one of these pro-porn “allies” extend his pro-woman rhetoric beyond telling feminists that we’re trying to curtail women’s sexual expression (sexual expression that happens to look a lot like male fantasy, that is). He’s a feminist, but he comes here and talks down to me even though I’m clearly smarter than he is. Priceless.
2 – I’m not shaming women, I’m saying there’s something that needs to be examined. I’m not going to patronize and infantilize women either, which means I’m going to challenge their views when I disagree with them. If any woman wants to come and tell me why she engages in some particular act, I’ll listen, and I’ll argue, and I’ll treat her like a human being rather than a baby who can’t defend her views. “Parry” and “riposte” are nearly synonymous as you’re using them, so you’re being redundant (unless you meant “parry” in the sense of “evade,” which I wouldn’t admit to if I were you). And also, you ought to rethink the preposition you used to connect them to the phrase “your argument.” You aren’t impressing anyone with your awkward deployment of SAT/GRE words here, so give it up.
3 – You’ve got a problem with more than just commas, my friend. This isn’t Germany; we don’t capitalize every noun. And why do I need to look shit up to make sense of your unclear writing? Your job as a writer is to make your points clear, not use stupid jargon to show everyone that you’ve taken a Sociology 101 class.
4 – The “level of discourse” you were working with? Ha! I think you know better than to try to impugn my critical thinking ability and rhetorical skill and pretend that the entirety of my thoughts in this post can be reduced to two (not really all that) contradictory slang terms. Nice try, though. I really like ignorant, unwarranted hubris, so good job.
5 – Way to weasel out of explaining how Foucault is relevant to this post (which I knew you couldn’t do anyway — for future reference, if you’re going to try to intimidate someone with references to mediocre European intellectuals, make sure they don’t know more about the subject than you do).
Sorry, Josh, but you’re not going to trick anyone into thinking you’re smarter than I am by using words you don’t even know the precise meaning of or by making off-point remarks that have no bearing on the subject of the post. And you’ve still yet to mount a defense for Kink.com.
February 8, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Well, Nine Deuce, the people who you should be talking to are the women who perform for these videos, and get their opinion on the subject.
If you keep talking about them without actually talking TO them, that is a form of dehumanization by itself.
February 8, 2009 at 2:55 AM
Whoally shitfest! ND, this is such ***necessary*** exposure, it really is. Speaking about BDSM without revealing the requests-nay DEMANDS- of these assholes is completely context-less.
As for poor arguments and failed synaptic connections, one has to be sucking shit through the ears to claim rafems are infantillizing bdsm-practicing women. What with all the references to adult females (they ARE adults right?) as “girls” and all the “spanking” oh-and-not-mention “Daddy,” “Master,” “Owner”…….UMMMMM–who the fuck is doing the infantillizing here?
February 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM
Forlock – Gimme their contact info and it’s on. So far, I’ve heard only one viewpoint from a Kink.com performer, and it confirmed what I suspected (see delphyne’s link). And the idea that you are going to tell me I’m the one dehumanizing these women is fucking hilarious.
February 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Hi,
Human sexuality is a weird thing. Some of the things that I’ve encountered that others fetishise leave me cold and occasionally I have to quell negative emotions.
However what consenting adults do in private that doesn’t hurt others is their business and if they want some porn that fits with those activities I see no harm in it and those scientists who have researched “violent” porn haven’t found evidence of harm. There are a number of studies that suggest those with a good sex life are mentally and physically healthier, regardless of their orientation.
I guess my SM orientation effects how I see and process this material. To someone not wired for that kind of loving it may well be that they experience it very differently.
I’ve met quite a few women who enjoy SM. They are adults and I don’t think society needs to protect them from themselves.
And if you looked at kink.com you’ll have seen they also have men playing the dominant/top role with men, women with women, women with men.
So may I appeal to those who have a different sexual orientation to respect ours. I don’t expect you to understand it or get it or see the beauty, the positive, the life affirming things we do. I understand that what you see provokes strong negative emotions. I gather that quite a few heterosexuals have a similar response to strong gay porn. So perhaps leaving the porn alone and speaking to us and listening would be a better route to take. We just, sometimes, make love differently to the societal approved missionary position, sometimes very differently ;) Believe me though we are enjoying ourselves and we are competent autonomous adults.
Michael_X
February 8, 2009 at 3:30 PM
You’re making a false analogy here between sexual orientation and fetish.
February 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Forlock. Do you have contact details for the women?
The question isn’t really how much anyone doing this ‘consents’. The question is what kind of person gets their rocks off watching torture.
Armin Meiwes is someone who you may have heard of. He cooked, killed and ate a man with his consent. The man was still alive when he and Meiwes ate his (the victim’s) penis.
Do you think that the “consent” means there are no problems with Meiwes actions? Because by your logic you should. And are we dehumanizing this man by not respecting his choice to be eaten?
February 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Hi,
“You’re making a false analogy here between sexual orientation and fetish.”
I don’t believe so and, with respect, I’m not making an analogy. For me it is a sexual orientation that I have had since an early age. Quite a lot of sadomasochists I’ve met regard it as an orientation though admittedly not all.
Take a look at the articles in the Journal of Homosexuality, volume 50, numbers 2/3, 2006 for some current research.
Consider what a fetish is:
From: The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English 2009:
fet·ish / ˈfetish/ • n. an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit. ∎ a course of action to which one has an excessive and irrational commitment: he had a fetish for writing more opinions each year than any other justice. ∎ a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. DERIVATIVES: fet·ish·ism n. fet·ish·ist n. fet·ish·is·tic adj. ORIGIN: early 17th cent. (originally denoting an object used by the peoples of West Africa as an amulet or charm): from French fétiche, from Portuguese feitiço ‘charm, sorcery’ (originally an adjective meaning ‘made by art’), from Latin factititus.
That doesn’t fit me. Although sure there are a lot of fetishists out there who need x, y, or z to be aroused and get off. No, for me it’s about my identity as a person, who I find myself romantically and sexually drawn to, how I relate and the sort of relationship dynamics I need in a fulfilling relationship. If, perhaps, I have a fetish it is for consent and mutual enjoyment.
You could put someone in front of me who fitted my every fantasy as to looks, who was bedecked in all those things I find hot in terms of clothing, hey why not throw in full use of kink.coms dungeons and toys, yet if when we looked at each other there was no SM magic spark then I’d yawn. On the other hand when I meet another person of similar orientation to mine then it matters little what they look like or if they are in jeans and a T-shirt; it’s the meeting of minds, the shared emotional landscapes, the person, and who we are and what we are.
Okay, I’m prone to purple prose, and the lack of a preview/edit system left some typos in my earlier comment and perhaps this one too, but for me it is a core aspect my identity. It’s about far more than sex. I believe that counts as an orientation.
Best regards,
Michael
February 8, 2009 at 7:08 PM
So are you a sadist Michael? If so what sort of sadistic acts do you commit on women?
Did you read the link about the woman being raped at Kink.com? Is that the sort of thing you’d enjoy watching?
Have you thought that maybe your sadism has cut you off from your humanity and your empathy as you seem to have no negative reaction to images of extreme torture of women.
February 8, 2009 at 7:51 PM
This is horrible. I didn’t agree with your posts about porn purely because the fact that the woman actually pretends the enjoy it and the majority of men believe she is actually enjoying it (or kid themselves into thinking that) shows that they actually have some humanity and dignity and would likely not put a woman through something she didn’t enjoy.
This site however is disgusting. I have serious issues with anyone who would want to watch this sort of thing. Not only that but it blurs the lines between consensual sex and rape – I’m sure there are men out there who have watched this so much that they probably think when a woman is saying no she is actually asking to be raped, beaten and tortured.
February 8, 2009 at 8:06 PM
“Quite a lot of sadomasochists I’ve met regard it as an orientation though admittedly not all.”
Michael: http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2007/10/models.html
(ND, I am not taking up your dare to defend Kink.com, for reasons I go into at SM-F here.)
February 8, 2009 at 8:33 PM
There’s no point in defending kink.com to you. You’ve already decided how you feel about it all. You’re not it’s audience, you’re not it’s community. You may have a case saying that max hardcore, or gonzo crap could fuck with your own personal life, but the people interested in kink.com wouldn’t even bother with you. You’re nothing to them.
February 8, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Perhaps I can add another perspective to this conversation. I consider myself a feminist, using the definition of promoting gender equality and giving women the freedom of choice. I’ve taken several women’s studies courses, and I’ve thought a lot about the destructive quality of patriarchy. I am also a submissive and masochist in a loving, long term relationship with a man I call my Master. The nature of our relationship and everything that we do is 100% consensual. We discuss and reevaluate our dynamic constantly, making sure that it makes us both happy, which it does. I am not with my boyfriend/Master because of any external pressures (e.g., I’m not financially tied to him, and I have a strong social network completely independent of him). I’m also not just agreeing to submit to him so that he’ll stay with me. If I want to stop this aspect of our relationship at any point, I know that he’ll still love me. I do it because I enjoy it and I find it physically and emotionally satisfying.
Rejecting patriarchy and engaging in (male-domiant) BDSM may seem superficially
February 8, 2009 at 9:18 PM
Perhaps I can add another perspective to this conversation. I consider myself a feminist, using the definition of promoting gender equality and giving women the freedom of choice. I’ve taken several women’s studies courses, and I’ve thought a lot about the destructive quality of patriarchy. I am also a submissive and masochist in a loving, long term relationship with a man I call my Master. The nature of our relationship and everything that we do is 100% consensual. We discuss and reevaluate our dynamic constantly, making sure that it makes us both happy, which it does. I am not with my boyfriend/Master because of any external pressures (e.g., I’m not financially tied to him, and I have a strong social network completely independent of him). I’m not with him because I’m insecure and this is the only thing that gives me a sense of self-worth, nor am I with him because I was violently sexually abused as a child. I’m also not just agreeing to submit to him so that he’ll stay with me. If I want to stop this aspect of our relationship at any point, I know that he’ll still love me. I do it because I enjoy it and I find it physically and emotionally satisfying.
Rejecting patriarchy and engaging in (male-dominant) BDSM may seem inconsistent, but it’s not. The difference between patriarchy and consensual submission is the consensual part. I’ve chosen to do this; I want this. Submission is not something that is imposed upon me. And it stops the moment I say it stops. Patriarchy can be very destructive to the human psyche, often silencing women and keeping men from their emotions. My relationship is the complete opposite. My boyfriend/Master encourages me to be honest with him (and with myself), and he is just as open and honest with me.
Yes, my Master enjoys seeing me squirm in pain, but that’s only because he knows that it also arouses me. The harder he twists my nipple, the wetter I get. I love wearing a collar and being called his good little slut. To an outsider, it may look like he’s hurting or humiliating me, but both of us know that it’s much more complex. Our relationship is based in love; our kink is the way we chose to express it.
I don’t know the stories of the women on kink.com. Perhaps there are some legitimate instances of abuse or harassment, as there are in many contexts. And I can’t say that all of the participants are in loving relationships. But I don’t think that their situation is all that different from my own – they are involved in something that they have chosen, because, for whatever reason, they enjoy it.
The reason you’ve been accused of being patronizing to women is because you are not recognizing that women have the emotional and mental capacity to decide whether or not they want to be in BDSM relationships. Just because that’s not your choice doesn’t mean that it can’t be mine. I feel like you are telling me that I am not making a rational choice or that I’m not making this choice for the right reasons. That is both insulting and paternalistic.
Blogs like this are what give feminism a bad name. You’re not actually listening to other women – you’re just telling us what we want (or should want).
February 8, 2009 at 9:22 PM
“However what consenting adults do in private that doesn’t hurt others is their business and if they want some porn that fits with those activities I see no harm in it and those scientists who have researched “violent” porn haven’t found evidence of harm.”
Sex that doesn’t hurt others? Well then, I think we’ve just removed kink.com from the equation. Michael, I think you are making the common mistake of ignoring the women in the porn.
Also, sources? What scientists?
February 8, 2009 at 9:47 PM
“I consider myself a feminist, using the definition of promoting gender equality and giving women the freedom of choice.”
Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression, meta. This “choice” argument was created by anti-feminists who wanted to claim that every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice which is clearly ridiculous. It’s an anti-feminist concept not a feminist concept.
February 8, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Apologies UK bed time will reply tomorrow.
Michael
February 8, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Feminism is about freeing women from any sort of oppression, not just oppression from males. Females can oppress other females as well, and that is just as unacceptable as males oppressing females. Oppression doesn’t become somehow more acceptable just because its being done by females. What exactly gives you the right to tell other women how to live?
And please explain how giving women more choices is an anti-feminist concept.
February 8, 2009 at 11:57 PM
“Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression, meta. This ‘choice’ argument was created by anti-feminists who wanted to claim that every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice which is clearly ridiculous. It’s an anti-feminist concept not a feminist concept.”
(1) Your tone is incredibly condescending and patronizing. I may be submissive to my Master, but I will not tolerate disrespect from anyone.
(2) It’s not whatever the woman chooses that is feminist/anti-feminist, but rather the act of choosing itself. It’s also the reason that the woman has made a particular choice that matters. Is she working the night shift because her husband forced her to, or is she a career woman because she wants to be? Is she a stay-at-home mom because she thinks that what she’s supposed to do as a woman, or because she finds joy in raising her children? I submit because I find it pleasurable, not because I am a woman and I think I “should.”
(3) Who are you to say that my definition of “feminism” is wrong? That word has and continues to be controversial. My extensive background in women’s studies lend support for my particular concept of equating feminism with choice, and I am going to continue to use that.
(4) Thank you, Master (aka Nic), for defending me here. :)
(5) I can’t believe I’ve gotten caught up in responding to this. A bit out of the norm for me. I may stop soon. Not because I think I’ll lose this argument, but because I’m not finding it enjoyable and I will therefore choose to stop. You can read more about my submission on my blog, though, if you’re interested.
February 9, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Now there’s a server farm that’s got “Please hurl a volley of incendiary grenades at me!” written all over it.
BeeTeeDubz, have you ever heard of makelovenotporn.com?
February 9, 2009 at 12:20 AM
I have heard of it. It looks pretty weak.
February 9, 2009 at 12:42 AM
ammre – No shit I’m nothing to the Kink.com people. I’m female, right? But the fact that I’m “nothing” to those motherfuckers really bums me out. No, really. I swear.
February 9, 2009 at 12:44 AM
I’m not being patronising Meta. I am just pointing out that you are incorrect in your understanding of feminism.
Women’s studies is often a site of anti-feminism these days unfortunately so it isn’t where I’d look for a definition of feminism, but being told something by a teacher gives the air of authority and hierarchy however so I can see why it would appeal to someone who was into BDSM. Feminism is about women’s liberation and BDSM with it’s attachment to male dominance and female submission and sadism towards women is antithetical to that.
Nic you don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s interesting to be lectured to about feminism by a man who has a woman as his slave and gets her to call him master though. That’s a first for me.
February 9, 2009 at 1:07 AM
Del,
As Meta said, feminism is a very controversial idea that has multiple definitions. Don’t treat your own version as necessarily right. As she pointed out, that is patronizing.
I don’t know what I’m talking about? Well, thanks for that assertion which lacks any evidence at all. By the way, if you are going to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, please make sure you know what your talking about, first.
“Feminism is about women’s liberation and BDSM with it’s attachment to male dominance and female submission and sadism towards women is antithetical to that.”
Actually, BDSM doesn’t have an attachment to male dominance and female submission. That’s the way that many people choose to take it, but a large number of people engage in it differently. I have an old friend of mine who is a Domme. Another friend of mines dad is submissive to her mom. There are plenty of people who switch roles.
By the way, please tell me how liberation involves telling people in society that they can’t do what they enjoy? You ignored my last question, surprisingly enough, try not to make it a pattern.
February 9, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Nic – You don’t get to speak for women in defining feminism, nor do you get to order people around here.
February 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM
ND,
I wasn’t speaking for women when I defined feminism. As a male, I get to talk about feminism as well. Please don’t shut me out of the conversation merely because of my sex. Doing so is no better than what happened to women for generations.
And do try to avoid telling me not to order people around, while simultaneously ordering me around.
February 9, 2009 at 1:20 AM
My evidence was Nic that you were talking total nonsense as to what feminism is and isn’t. I’m also not interested in your facile questions. You appear to take yourself far too seriously – “master” FFS.
February 9, 2009 at 1:21 AM
It’s my blog, so I decide what goes on in comments. You, being male, are entitled to whatever opinions you have about feminism, but you aren’t entitled to tell women what feminism is or should be about. It’s not here for you, it’s here for us, so let us work it out amongst ourselves. We’re capable, trust me. As to ordering people around, your tone is insulting and patronizing. I reserve the right to edit your comments if you keep it up. You might be used to ordering your partner around, but I don’t have to deal with it, nor do my other commenters.
February 9, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Women’s studies has a lot to answer for if it gives the Nics of this world the idea that they can muscle in on feminism. Really poor show.
February 9, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Wow…so you deleted my comments where I calmly explained debates, but you let it go through where I just trashed you?
Classy.
February 9, 2009 at 3:03 AM
You never calmly explained debates (whatever the fuck that means), you were insulting from the get-go. Honestly, I didn’t delete anything. Your comments were in moderation, but now I will delete them. You’ve been boorish and irritating since you got here, and you don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about. You clearly know nothing about feminist theory, the history of feminism, or what’s going on with feminism today. You also don’t seem to understand that as a man, you might be able to support feminism (though you obviously don’t – you’re a grade-A misogynist judging by the way you treat women who disagree with you), but you don’t get to play a directive role in it because women are the ones who get to decide what issues are most pressing and how to organize the movement. You’re in over your head and you’re making an asshole of yourself. Piss off. And go learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” and “its” and “it’s.”
February 9, 2009 at 3:33 AM
>>>Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression, meta. This “choice” argument was created by anti-feminists who wanted to claim that every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice which is clearly ridiculous.>>>
And who are you to deny a woman her own choices just because you don’t think those choices are feminist? A woman’s choices are her OWN, not yours to make for her.
And the “choice” argument that you speak of was created by feminists in the late 60s and early 70s in regards to access to birth control and abortion. They argued that it was “her body, her choice”. And while Meta’s choice is not my choice or your choice, it’s HER choice.
There is a difference between what two people like Meta and Nic decide for themselves, and what a group of people like the Taliban decide for women as whole: forced to wear a burka, being denied education, denied employment, and denied the right to even go out of the house.
So what are you going to do? Set up spy cameras in everyone’s home to make sure they are having sex in the politically correct rad-fem way?? Quite ridiculous.
Frankly, Delphyne, what you call “radical feminism” is nothing but patriarchy in reverse. Meaning that instead of the men doing the oppressing, it’s the women who are the oppressors.
February 9, 2009 at 3:38 AM
Forlock – Radical feminism is not patriarchy in reverse. Radical feminists just don’t think that sex takes place in a vacuum where choice renders patriarchy irrelevant. You know you’re mischaracterizing the radfem position. Stop being dishonest.
February 9, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Hi,
Delphyne you asked me some questions.
“So are you a sadist Michael?”
I think we need to be careful with terms here. That word is heavily overloaded with conflicting meanings and is heavily context defendant. I tend to use the term sadomasochist. Some might call me a BDSM practitioner, or kinky, or a perve. However any label is going to mislead. I’m old enough to remember when to the majority of the UK population the term homosexual was considered a synonym for paedophile.
“If so what sort of sadistic acts do you commit on women?”
None that I haven’t experienced and enjoyed myself. Yes, shameful as it is sometimes considered in today’s BDSM world, I switch. I’m not going into specifics but I will say that I am rather tame in what I do compared to kink.com. Much of what they portray is fantasy. Just like non-SM porn.
Watch some non-SM porn, if you wish, and see those athletic bodies, often selected because of natural or artificially enhanced sexual characteristics, the incredible stamina, etc. Is ordinary day to day sex like that?
No, it’s fantasy sex, and a lot of kink.com is fantasy SM. Some of it very hot to those who enjoy that sort of thing.
Yes, when I watch it I vicariously enjoy it. Yes, I’d love to engage in some of those activities but lack the skill, training, equipment, etc. And, yes, I’d like to engage from both perspectives. All those things you see being done to those women, I’d like to try. Both doing and experiencing them done to me. Some of them I have and enjoyed tremendously.
“Did you read the link about the woman being raped at Kink.com?”
No apologies if I have missed something important. If you post it I’ll take a look and respond to that. Thank you in advance.
“Is that the sort of thing you’d enjoy watching?”
I’ll have to see the link but it’s a no brainer to say that if it is rape then yuk. I’m an ethical person and a consent freak.
“Have you thought that maybe your sadism has cut you off from your humanity and your empathy as you seem to have no negative reaction to images of extreme torture of women.”
What I am seeing is people engaging in hot kinky mutually fulfilling sex.
As I’ve said it’s a brain wiring thing, if you are not wired that way I don’t expect you to see or get what it is that we do. Just accept that we are adults, competent and enjoying ourselves.
Sometimes in life things are not what they seem and that is very true of much SM activity.
I’d write more but we have to get the kids off to school, go to work, yadda, yadda.
Best regards,
Michael
February 9, 2009 at 9:22 AM
I would generally agree with Forlock. There are plenty of decisions that I disaprove off, but that I’m not going to claim people have no right to make. We all know the terrible effects that smoking has. It has no positive aspects whatsoever. But it’s not for me to say that people have no right to smoke.
I’d also agree that many people (not neccesarily Delphyne) do seem to be calling themselves feminists or radical feminists as an excuse to be condescending or insulting towards people holding other views.
February 9, 2009 at 11:55 AM
I’m just skipping over the male sadists’ posts for now. They have nothing to say to me.
Men who enjoy torturing women or who enjoy seeing women tortured are the enemies of womankind and the enemies of feminism. You can see it in action here the way they try to neutralise feminism or turn it into something that supports their woman-hating activities. All they are interested in is for the torture and abuse to continue and for them to be free of any criticism or opposition. It’s not going to happen.
February 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM
It’s amazing most individuals who promote BDSM as ‘fun and sexually empowering’ have totally ignored how Kink.com is nothing new at all. The methods those men who work for Kink are not new because the Spanish Inquisition, the Nazis and now of course pornographers use the same old methods. Namely, imprisoning women in very small cages and the systematically raping and sexually torturing them. Only difference is the rapists and pornographers let the women out – but not until after they have been sufficiently dehumanised and sexually tortured by men.
Ah but now we are supposedly living in a more civilised culture? Are we? Are we not simply re-imposing what white culture did to black female and male slaves and also what the Nazis did to women and men who did not conform to their white male supremacist ideologies.
Ah but sexually torturing women is now ‘empowering’ and sexually freeing, because such women ‘choose’ to be sexually tortured by men. Likewise, when denial doesn’t work always claim ‘but men are depicted too in similar acts. Yes indeed some men are sexually tortured by other men but the real reason is because the men sexually tortured are those labelled ‘feminised others.’ They are not ‘real men’ and hence it is appropriate for them to be sexually tortured.
No escaping it – all the excuses in the world does not justify men sexually torturing and raping women just so they can ‘get their rocks off.’
February 9, 2009 at 5:12 PM
isme – I’ve never said that anyone has no right to engage in whatever they’re engaged in, unless they’re hurting people. I think the issue at hand is whether what goes on at Kink.com and as a result of what they do hurts people. I think it does.
February 9, 2009 at 5:16 PM
It’s a bit off-topic now, but didn’t anybody notice that you have to declare that you don’t find anything displayed on kink.com offensive or obscene BEFORE you may enter?
Come on! When there is nothing offensive or obscene shown on a site, there is no need to make sure that people agree on that in advance. By forcing this opinion on people, they actually make the concession that there might at least be some offensive or obscene things on the site.
February 9, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Couple notes.
Sex does not exist in a vacuum. The choices a woman makes with her partner has significant effects on her relationship, and her relationship has a significant effect on her life. The exact same can be said of her job choices, decision to conceive or not, and the way she interacts with the world.
We are all human, have experienced different things in life, and have different tastes in many things. Art, food, sex, companionship, entertainment… all the factors that make our lives enjoyable and worth living involve choices that others would likely not make themselves. Not all of these things are feminist activities in their very nature, and some of them, like BDSM, can be practiced in ways that harm women. Again, I’ll stress can.
I’m not involved with the BDSM scene, but of the two people I know personally that are, both are women and both are Dom’s. I realize that this is a small sample and possibly more indicative of the people I associate with, but it makes it very difficult for me to categorically decry BDSM as anti-feminist.
However, even given the (heteronormative) premise of a female Sub and a Male Dom, the reality is that a healthy scene relies on the needs of both parties being met, even if this is not evident on first glance. I can only imagine that a long term relationship is more so. The world is a hard place, and one that people sometimes need to escape from for a little bit in order to come back stronger. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that a woman who is highly self-aware and lives her life making systemic changes in the world that benefit all would enjoy and find solace in BDSM, in either role.
The approach you and many of your commenter have taken up in dealing with this subject totally disregards the agency of the people involved, and uses them only as props in your attack on freedom.
And to get through the many strawman scare questions, no I don’t think torture is right, no I don’t think using mind tricks to keep a sub “in place” is right, and I think that anyone who is in an abusive relationship should get out and stay out. I also happen to be an anti-authoritarian, and apply that to not telling people how to live their lives.
February 9, 2009 at 6:09 PM
I posted this comment on Renegade Evolution’s blog:
Okay, just visited Kink.com, and don’t see what is so disturbing, really. It’s BDSM, okay. And?
It is obviously consensual BDSM itself that is the issue, right? Are we back to that again?
ND, it is when someone correctly calls this a KINK, that you know you are safe and have nothing to worry about. They understand what it is. It’s when a man thinks this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE in all things and at all times, that you have something to worry about.
What’s hard to comprehend about that? The whole site is called KINK, which means the people who arrive at that site must have a certain sexual self-awareness in the first place: they are KINKY, not mainstream.
They are going to that site to BE WITH THEIR OWN KIND, not with you.
February 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM
polerin – I don’t disregard the agency of the people involved, but I do see that their agency is being exercised within a game they didn’t set the rules of. There’s a difference, and I think pretending there isn’t is oversimplifying things. Everyone seems to want to reduce this issue to “choice,” as if that’s all that there is to it. That’s a myopic way to approach something so complicated.
February 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Daisy – I’m not so sanguine about the proclivities of men who like to see women tortured. Good for you if you are.
February 9, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Delphyne,
Apologies, I’ve read again the posts above and found the link you posted about an alleged rape at kink.com. My bad, I should have seen it first read through. I’ve also done a search with terms like “arrest”, “police, “legal charges”, etc.
I’ve not seen or found anything to lead me to believe there is any truth in the allegation. Hearsay and anecdote yes but evidence no. There are also claims, such as the use of “mm mm” as a safe word that don’t ring true.
If a rape or indeed any kind of non consensual activity did take place then I hope the victim goes to the police and that it is investigated fully followed by legal proceedings, convictions and an appropriate term of imprisonment for those responsible.
Regards,
Michael
February 9, 2009 at 6:53 PM
‘Obviously’ consensual, huh? I’m glad you know exactly what is going on, and what is consensual and what is not, Daisy. Thank god you’re here to advise us!
Even if it is ‘consensual’, it still amounts to images of men torturing women. It is still sexualising the humiliation and degradation of women. How the hell can anyone think that’s okay?! It’s beyond me.
February 9, 2009 at 7:06 PM
If only it were so simple as that, Michael X. Women who are raped in the porn industry have absolutely no legal recourse. They’ve signed waivers, they’ve been taped giving consent, and when they’re gagged, how can they protest when things go too far? What cop is going to take the claims of a rape victim seriously who has been taped allowing herself to be tortured?
February 9, 2009 at 7:42 PM
>>I’m not being patronising Meta. I am just pointing out that you are incorrect in your understanding of feminism.>>
Miriam Webster defines feminism as : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Subject to interpretation. Thus either of you could be correct, incorrect or any point in between. It’s subjective. Meta isn’t incorrect. If she were stating this perspective was radical feminism perhaps it could be stated she was incorrect in her understanding as radical feminism has a specific understanding of feminism from a specific view.
There is nothing however that states that radical feminism is the only path to feminist social change. I believe it is imperative that we focus on the goals of feminism and the enormous challenges of building a fair and just world for women. Patriarchy wins in an environment where bandwidth is expended fighting to enforce one view of radical feminism.
Is the goal to fight oppression or to fight for a singular interpretation of feminism? There are different approaches, different views but much bigger priorities than whether Meta’s view of feminism is consistent with radical feminism.
February 9, 2009 at 8:05 PM
ND: So, you’re not denying their agency, you just think they don’t know what they are doing, or .. what exactly? Why shouldn’t a woman decide that she likes that kind of interaction and wants to go ahead with it?
The assertion that they don’t set the rules is not a wholly factual one. Everything I have ever seen about BDSM being practiced safely and consensually includes a large dose of “Know what you are getting into, and work out things ahead of time together.” If you wish to make the argument that society has programmed them to want that kind of treatment, go ahead, but I’d suggest that you check to see if there is a peer reviewed study or two that backs you up on it. The very existence of non-hetero women Subs makes it much more difficult to support.
I am not limiting it solely to “choice”, I am saying that a human beings agency to make choices that do not harm other people should not be limited. I have to say I find it interesting that you claim BDSM’s defenders are limiting the scope of the argument when you consistently disregard that it’s NOT just the male dom female sub setup.
February 9, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Zeta: I’m not a fan of referring to the dictionary for definitions of a movement or sociopolitical ideology. Invariably it is not nuanced enough, too heavily influenced by popular thought, or both.
That being said, I do agree with your overall message of, “Really, do we need to condemn each other?”
February 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Dude, Michael X, way to know nothing about the law. As someone that studies the law (oh noes), I know that 98-95% of women that report rape are not lying. It’s a pretty common statistical fact, so I feel confident in telling you to look it the fuck up.
Furthermore, kink.com takes the already horrible imbalance of power inherit in pornography (the women have no legal recourse, cannot control how their images are used, etc) and enhances it tenfold with pornography that inherently approves of non-consensual sex, torture, rape, abuse, and battery. All of the above, might I add, are completely and utterly illegal if non-consensual (and, many moral theorists postulate that they cannot be consented to at all, especially such oxymoronic things like “consensual rape” or “consensual slavery”).
So you’re arguing here out of total ignorance of the law. Nice try.
February 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM
this convo is interesting for me as a woman, as a BDSM FemDomme (female dominant), and as a feminist. i have to say, radical feminism and i often do not get along, as i tend to feel as though anyone not in full agreement with rad-fem blogs/posters is called out as delusional or defective and not able to make decisions for themselves. having a prevailing thought that decisions made by women that have the same facts as you do, but that make decisions different from you, are not really chosing but are in fact dupes seems counter productive and it makes getting through some of these issues that much harder.
because, honestly, i’m not 100% sure how i feel about porn. i know i’m not ok with the pornification of many things, young women and girls especially. and i am vehemently anti-slut shaming. something i, unfortunetly, see on far to many occations coming from (seeming) rad-fem places. sex and sexuality being the complex creatures they are, i find it wrong to tell someone their way of relating to their sexuality is incorrect. but then, i find it wrong to tell anyone how they can and cannot relate to an ephemeral concept, be it sexuality, feminism, gender, etc.
having said that, ND it’s obvious that this has allarmed and offended you. i am not trying to tell you how to think or feel about the things on kink.com or the people who view the content. i will, however tell you that your demand that people not ever think or feel or enjoy this kind of sex or sexuality is akin to demanding that gay people become straight. is it possible that lines were crossed and that the women and men on the reciving end have gotten more than they thought they would, or have had reactions different than they thought they would? not only do i know it possible in this context, i know it happens in real life situations. and if a performer (or bottom of any kind) believes they have been pushed beyond their acceptable limits they should be aloowed to speak out against it. as a general rule the BDSM community does not like having people around who abuse other people under the cover of what it is that we do. there are support groups and community involvments in place to try and help prevent as much of this as we can.
i know you don’t really want someone here defending kink.com, and i think that might be what meta, michael_x, nic and i are picking up on. which might be why this convo has taken a different turn. but please understand that in asking that someone defend kink.com and the “sick fucks” who look at and are aroused by the images there, you are asking us to defend our sexuality. i cannot speak for the other posters here, i can only speak for myself. but it seems to me, it feels to me, it reads to me as though nothing i can say about my life will be considered by you as valid. you have passed judgement on me, on my relationship- the single most loving, fulfilling, amazing relationship i have ever had- and you have concluded it isn’t real.
maybe you don’t intend to sound like “the opposition” by using words that other, by accusing people like me of horrendous things, by saying we are the cause of societies ills. but you do. you sound just like the people who demanded we pass pro 8 so the sancitiy of marriage and the lives of children could be protected from those horrid and damaging gay people who want their sick, immoral relationships acknowledged.
is it possible for us to disagree without condemnation?
February 9, 2009 at 9:02 PM
ND,
You make a very valid point and one I admit I was aware of. Still, successful prosecutions have taken place in the UK and if the allegation is true I hope the woman does go to the police.
You asked for someone to defend kink.com but ultimately only they can do that.
I have very limited information, being in the UK. What I can say though is that there are people I have met and people who I have communicated with for many years who are involved in the US BDSM scene and various BDSM, SM, and leather communities and organisations, some of them for decades, and I have not come across gossip, rumour or other red flags concerning this business.
Word of mouth in a tight community built upon knowing others, earning trust and ones reputation can be a very powerful “police force” both to control behaviour and deal with those who step out of line.
Now absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but I’m minded to consider them innocent on this one until proven guilty given that I have found no allegations of criminal or unethical behaviour against them other than hearsay on a website of questionable impartiality.
On the other hand I’m also going to go out, dig around, and try to prove myself wrong. If I hear anything suggestive of wrongdoing from or through a source I know and trust or other new evidence appears I may well change my position and if I don’t like what I hear I’ll share it here if possible.
Ultimately if one considers porn or sex work or SM as always sick, unacceptable, vile or whatever then they, kink.com, certainly are all that. (I’m not saying that is your position, just speaking in general). As is every other business who like them are selling fairly heavy hardcore SM porn.
I wouldn’t even begin to try to defend all of sex work, the porn industry or even all SM. Nor would I wish to there is a lot of bad out there that stinks. However my perspective is it is not all bad. Ethical sex work, porn and SM are possible and exist.
Nagel, in a famous essay, asked “What’s it like to be a bat?” I imagine a bat given human level cognitive skills and language if asked to explain batness would feel just as tongue tied, frustrated and inadequate as I do in trying to explain what SM is to those of us, male and female, who are wired that way to people whose orientation is very much not SM.
So to sum up the defense you requested. I believe sadomasochism is an orientation, that ethical SM is possible, and that I have not encountered credible evidence that kink.com has committed crimes or behaved unethically. I freely admit I am not in a position to check as closely as I would wish and I reserve the right to radically change my opinion about kink.com if such evidence should come to light. I also accept, though I believe them in error, that some simply consider all SM unethical and that to them no defense can be offered.
“The things that seem beautiful, inspiring, and life-affirming to me seem hateful, ugly, and ludicrous to most other people.” – Pat Califia, Macho Sluts.
I doubt if anything I’ve said will alter the way SM looks to people who see it that way just as my hypothetical bat would never enable me to see the world as bat ultrasonic radar sees it.
Thank you for allowing me to have my say. For fear of repeating myself or going round in circles, something I fear I may already have done to a small extent, I’ll shut up and listen unless you or another specifically addresses something to me.
Kind regards,
Michael
February 9, 2009 at 9:05 PM
Firefly – I’m not comfortable with this analogy people keep making between BDSM and homosexuality. There is an element of power and oppression involved in BDSM that is not inherent in homosexual encounters. And as someone who believes that sexual orientation is not a choice, I don’t like the comparison either (though I’d rather leave the analysis of this comparison to readers who aren’t heterosexual). I don’t appreciate being compared to people who supported Prop. 8 because I’ve got some serious moral and theoretical problems with the intermingling of sex and power while we live in a misogynistic society.
February 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM
and i can respect the fact that you question consentual power exchange relationships as they relate to a non-consentual imbalanced power dynamic at large in the culture we live in. i do the same thing myself pretty regularly while trying not to give myself a nasty case of congnitive dissonance. but i stand behind the comparison to the language used.
in terms of history of sexual movements they are really quite similar. homosexuality as it was percived 30-50 years ago vs how it percieved now has many similarities. accusations of pedophelia, subversion, and all maner of questionable morals were thrown against gay communities. many of those same accusations are thrown our way. you may also want to look at the intersectionality of BDSM/Leatherist communities and GLBTQ communities. the overlap is pretty high.
February 9, 2009 at 9:23 PM
ND: I’m no queer theory master, and your point about a power relations in BDSM vs SSR’s is valid, but I think there is at least a superficial validity to the comparison. You are with the majority in looking at a sexual practice and relationships that involve it which you don’t share, and are considering it’s practitioners wrong for doing so. There is privilege in not having to deal with societies condemnation of how you have sex.
Are there things that (non-BDSM)GLBT couples have to deal with which (straight)BDSM relationships don’t? Most definitely. I assume the reverse is true as well.
That being said, I am uncomfortable comparing a for-profit website with my marriage.
February 9, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I’m not comparing Kink.com to people’s real relationships (it says so in the first paragraph).
I’m just worried about people making claims on oppressed status when the status is something that’s being chosen.
February 9, 2009 at 9:36 PM
i didn’t claim oppessed status, i said you use language that others people for their sexuality. on top of which there is no clear distinction between nature and nurture when it comes to sexuality. one could, and often does, make the claim that homosexuality is a choice. i would disagree with them, and i have a feeling you would to. you claim my sexuality is a choice and i say you are incorrect for the same reasons i would disagree with the peoson claiming homosexuality was a choice.
February 9, 2009 at 9:38 PM
“Dude, Michael X, way to know nothing about the law. As someone that studies the law (oh noes), I know that 98-95% of women that report rape are not lying. It’s a pretty common statistical fact, so I feel confident in telling you to look it the fuck up.”
Its also one that is basically made up and incredibly hard to prove one way or another. I have no idea what the numbers are, and I can’t see why anyone would lie about it, but knowledge of the law doesn’t provide any evidence at all about the percentage of women who lie about rape.
February 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM
Except that our society conditions women to be sexually submissive, whereas it does not condition people to be homosexuals.
I’m not “othering” anyone (I do dislike that term – it’s academic jargon), I’m saying that I think there’s something problematic going on. I can understand why it’s going on, which means I’m not essentializing difference or presenting myself as a foil to those who do something I think is problematic.
February 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM
i would also like to point out that while you do state that your post is not about BDSM in real relationships, you do state pretty plainly that people who find this arousing are sick and demented. and guess what kinds of people are going to be the overwhelming majority of kink.com consumers…
February 9, 2009 at 9:40 PM
“Firefly – I’m not comfortable with this analogy people keep making between BDSM and homosexuality. There is an element of power and oppression involved in BDSM that is not inherent in homosexual encounters. And as someone who believes that sexual orientation is not a choice, I don’t like the comparison either (though I’d rather leave the analysis of this comparison to readers who aren’t heterosexual). I don’t appreciate being compared to people who supported Prop. 8 because I’ve got some serious moral and theoretical problems with the intermingling of sex and power while we live in a misogynistic society.”
Both are deviant sexualities. Both are groups of people who are marginalized. Both have inherent dangers in both, but in the end, both are sexual choices made by consenting adults.
The same type of arguments about that they don’t know whats good for them, that they don’t know whats healthy, that they are buying into an evil form of society that you have been making about BDSM, are made about homosexuals.
February 9, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Are you saying homosexuality is a choice?
February 9, 2009 at 9:45 PM
It may be hard to prove, but it isn’t made up. See this post and the links it contains.
February 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM
all human sexuality is a combination of inborn nature and external ideology, so the argument can be made that some people are conditioned to be sexually submissive, some people are conditioned to be homosexual, and some people are going to be all over the map. what i find most disheartening is the fact that you refuse to discuss any BDSM relationship that is not Male Dom/ fem sub. I am not submissive, i never have been. my beloved is not feminized by me or anyone around him. but he is most assuredly submissive to me. and if we look at images of BDSM and get aroused, or get ideas, or get discussion topics out of it then we’re sick and twisted fucks who hould just go kill ourselves for exploring that side of our sexuality? do you see how that is alienating? or am i just beating my head against a wall here?
February 9, 2009 at 9:47 PM
“I don’t disregard the agency of the people involved, but I do see that their agency is being exercised within a game they didn’t set the rules of.”
This is patently false, or is in any healthy BDSM relationship. The bottom should ALWAYS have agency to choose. This is why we have things like safe words.
February 9, 2009 at 9:48 PM
ND: I realize that, I was being cautious as it seemed like the thread had diverged from your original theme of “talk about kink.com” and into a broader discussion of BDSM. I don’t really think that it is possible to separate your critique of kink.com from a critique of BDSM as practiced in a relationship or in the wider world.
Beyond that, I dislike the “You’re born gay, so that makes it ok” argument which you hint at by saying that BDSM is chosen. I don’t mean to presume, but from the post and your statements in comments you seem to identify as a radFem, which I always associate (possibly erroneously) with the quote, “feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice”. I don’t know what makes me as I am, but reducing things to biological essentialism reaches into oversimplification in my opinion.
For example. Say, as a purely hypothetical, that the predisposition to enjoying S&M is not a biological artifact, but rather a byproduct of their environment. Is that “chosen”, and if so, is the person who has that disposition wrong for having it?
February 9, 2009 at 9:53 PM
“Are you saying homosexuality is a choice?”
Whether our desires for one sex or another is a choice is a scientific question that hasn’t been answered. But as far as people choose to actually engage in sex, yes, we do choose who we fuck. This should have absolutely no bearing on the the same-sex debate, and in fact the proliferation of arguments trying to prove its a choice one way or the other are merely buying into the assumption that its a negative thing to do. The argument is basically if its a choice, well then clearly you shouldn’t choose it and we can blame gays. But if its not a choice, well then they can’t help it, they are just diseased and we should allow it. Its an asinine argument that starts out presupposing that homosexuality is bad.
Who cares if its biological or not. People want to do something that doesn’t effect anyone else at all. Nobody goes around arguing about whether my profession, or what I like to eat, or any other of my traits are biological, so leave this one out as well.
February 9, 2009 at 9:55 PM
No, dude, I mean that the overarching social structure in which we live constricts choice.
February 9, 2009 at 10:00 PM
“It may be hard to prove, but it isn’t made up. See this post and the links it contains.”
Neither the post, nor the links provide any evidence that it wasn’t made up.
Here’s some evidence that it is made up. Not that its wrong, but that its made up. Who knows what the number is, but as far as I know, its really fucking hard to figure out what the numbers would be, and real scientific studies on it haven’t come out.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html
February 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM
“No, dude, I mean that the overarching social structure in which we live constricts choice.”
Right…because all these women who have submitted are doing so because society pressures them too, right? But yet, its something that they can’t tell society because, if they do, it does what you are doing to them, but worse.
You don’t find it odd at all to say that society is restricting the choices these women have and forcing them into something that society completely, and unequivocally condemns them for doing?
February 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM
polerin – I’m not a lesbian, so I clearly don’t subscribe to that bit of ideology. I don’t completely subscribe to any ideology, as I came to the feminism I feel is right without having had any exposure to feminist theory of any kind.
To polerin and Nic – I don’t really know or care whether homosexuality is biological, because I’m not here to tell anyone how to have sex or whom to have sex with. That’s the patriarchy’s job, not mine. But BDSM does tend to play into patriarchal ideas about sex in a lot of ways, alloying sex with power as it does. As sex is used as a tool of oppression against women, I think it’s necessary to take a close look at what’s going on in M/f BDSM. You might come to the conclusion that you can practice it without it amounting to oppression, but I remain unconvinced. You can choose to not give a shit whether I’m convinced, but I’m not. The difference between me and anti-gay types or those who engage in slut-shaming is that I don’t advocate the banning or extirpation of anything. I instead hope that by discussing things and getting them out into the open, people will gradually come to see the problems inherent in mixing up sex and power in a hierarchical society. You can ignore me and go on thinking whatever you want, but you’re not really my target audience here. Fence-sitters are.
February 9, 2009 at 10:03 PM
constricts, yes, but negates all together? i can’t get behind that. and yet, much of your post here seems to imply that i cannot make choices because i’m not enlightened enough about my options.
February 9, 2009 at 10:03 PM
For someone who claims to be a feminist sympathizer, you sure are sounding like an MRA with this false-rape-claim business.
February 9, 2009 at 10:04 PM
How in god’s name are you going to claim that society derides women for being sexually submissive?
February 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM
No, not negates altogether. I obviously don’t think that or I’d stop writing. But the constrictions and influences are there, and I’m just trying to draw attention to them.
February 9, 2009 at 10:15 PM
there’s two bits i want to respond to. one, the statement that society doesn’t punish women for sexual submission. i can only agree to that to a point. much of society wants women to be marginally submissive to their men. any woman the think is being too submissive is brainwashed and coerced. women friends i have who participate in M/f relationships are told they are being abused, that they should leave, that they cannot rationaly evaluate their relationship. i will be one of the first people to admit that from the outside some of what goes on in a power exchange relationship looks like abuse. but if you refuse to believe a woman who tells you she is happy, who seems to be thriving, who seems genuinely to love her situation how are you any better than someone who doesn’t believe a woman who says she is being abused. you do not get to pick and chose who is speaking their personal truth.
the other thing i want to point out is, your refusal to talk about permutations other than M/f within this context. if you want to discuss the constrictions placed on women as they relate to their sexuality, great. but lets not just talk about the one that you think is bad. because i get heaps of shit from people about the way i conduct my relationship. i’m unfeminine, i’m controlling, i’m a ball buster (i am but in a totally different, and much more litteral context). my beloved is a pussy bitch, weak, pathetic, unmanly. we are both devient for refusing to play by gender norms.
i’m all for discussing the intersections of power and sexuality. i’m all for discussing the possible implications of those intersections. and i’m really quite happy to talk about what it means to be into BDSM and feminism. i’m just not sure that’s really what you want to do.
February 9, 2009 at 10:17 PM
ND: I didn’t intend to imply that you did, I apologize. I was actually intending to say that it simply implies the fact that homosexuality can in some instances be a choice. I simply dislike essentialist arguments when it comes to things like GLBT issues.
Anyhow, seeing as you say you are not asking to ban BDSM, what *is* your intent. Your orginal post used some very strong and very emotionally charged language and ideas. It didn’t come across as, “I am unconvinced that BDSM can be practiced without it amounting to oppression.”
It came of as “BDSM is rape and torture, and anyone who gets off on it is a disgusting motherfucker”. In the first I can see a theory discussion, the second it seems as though you are set to condemn anyone and everyone who engages in BDSM and enjoys it.
As a side note, I suspect that the fence sitters are everyone’s target, though I do hope to at least have a civil discussion of where our outlooks on the world diverge. ;)
February 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM
“I don’t really know or care whether homosexuality is biological, because I’m not here to tell anyone how to have sex or whom to have sex with.”
Except you want to shame Meta for the way she has sex with me, and you want me to”kill myself” for what I find arousing. You have told people how to have sex, and you’ve told us we are doing it wrong.
“But BDSM does tend to play into patriarchal ideas about sex in a lot of ways, alloying sex with power as it does”
Yes, it can. Both patriarchy and BDSM are power relationships. Frankly, sex and power have a lot to do with each other. Someone is on top, someone is on bottom. Someone is controlling it more than the other. Someone makes the first move. Not everything that happens or has something that could relate to patriarchy, does relate to patriarchy. Guess what else? BDSM can be dangerous. This is part of the reason there are so many rules and formalities around it. But men and women have agency to decide that they want to enjoy something, even if it is dangerous.
“As sex is used as a tool of oppression against women, I think it’s necessary to take a close look at what’s going on in M/f BDSM.”
And this is what I find ridiculous. M/f BDSM is somehow bad, but F/m BDSM is more understandable? Imagine patriarchy doesn’t exist. Many of these people will still want to engage in the same type of activities that they want to now. But somehow now its ok? So what people want to do is acceptable only because of completely outside influences beyond their control? Thats an absurd way of judging actions.
When i was born, my parents had a group of friends similar to some of the people on this blog. They suggested that my parents give me up for adoption because I was male. When my parents refused, they kicked my parents out of the group. Yes, I had a penis, but I was an infant. This is the same type of demonizing that you are engaged in.
“The difference between me and anti-gay types or those who engage in slut-shaming is that I don’t advocate the banning or extirpation of anything”
Someone posted that you applauded the UK laws making BDSM illegal. That would be advocating, and applauding, the banning of my and Metas consensual sexual activities.
“I instead hope that by discussing things and getting them out into the open, people will gradually come to see the problems inherent in mixing up sex and power in a hierarchical society.”
Of course there are problems with it. Mixing up anything and power has inherent problems with it no matter what kind of society you are in. But “that there might be issues” and condemning it, and shaming those who engage in it, are two very, very different things.
You didn’t want an honest discussion, you wanted to insult something you found gross in the name of feminism. No honest discussion of a sexuality starts out with outright stating that some practitioners of it should kill themselves. Rhetorical flourish or not.
February 9, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I admit straight up that I have no sympathy for Kink.com. It’s terrifying shit, and I’m very afraid of the men who use the site.
firefly – I explained in my 4th BDSM post why I chose to focus on M/f BDSM. I think it’s a different thing than other forms of BDSM, and the only reason they’re lumped together is because there’s a scene involved. BDSM is a big umbrella, and I think it’s OK to analyze one thing that falls under it on its own. Obviously it doesn’t make sense to discuss everything involved in BDSM at once, lest we end up talking in huge, indefensible generalities.
February 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM
You aren’t going to paint me as a lunatic because you want to compare me to someone who told your parents to give you up for adoption because you’re male.
I applauded the UK ban on violent porn because I think it’s harmful and there’s no way to legally protect the women involved from rape.
I’ve explained over and over why I think M/f BDSM is inherently more problematic than other forms. I’m tired of repeating myself and I have work to do.
And I didn’t shame Meta.
February 9, 2009 at 11:06 PM
And I didn’t shame Meta.
well, I guess that’s Meta’s call, if she feels shamed by you or not.
February 9, 2009 at 11:07 PM
Yeah, everything in the world is subjective. There’s no right or wrong.
February 9, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Yeah, everything in the world is subjective. There’s no right or wrong.
That’s not at all the point I was trying to make. I’ll try to be more clear (hard for me because I’m totally not as smart as you) –
You may not have thought your words were shaming. Yet Meta may still feel shamed.
You may well be able to say “I did not intend to shame Meta.” But that has no bearing on the actual shame she may have felt.
February 9, 2009 at 11:40 PM
>>I applauded the UK ban on violent porn because I think it’s harmful and there’s no way to legally protect the women involved from rape.>>
Maybe this is something we need to come together and put aside differences and fighting over who knows what about feminism, who is feminist, etc.
Sex without consent is rape. If women can’t go to the police, which I know they can’t, if they are in BDSM porn and state have been raped,,, The problem is the police. The video is useless in terms of defining consent. A smile on camera isn’t inherently consent a scream on camera isn’t inherently rape. It is how the person determines they feel about it. All the statements on tape saying I consent are meaningless if she didn’t. That being said there are women who do consent to being tortured, filmed with active and free consent.
The police who refuse to do their job because of what is portrayed on video. They are who is wrong. The justice system who turns a blind eye because of the video is wrong. It’s often very specific to the victim. And there lies the key. Specific to the victim.
If I am an actress in a video that depicts very violent rape but entered it and everything that went into it with consent, let’s say for the hypothetical of making a video to demonstrate the horror of rape for the construct of social change, regardless of what was shot, if I consented and had active consent, then it wasn’t rape and the men weren’t rapists. On the flip side I could shoot the same film, smile endlessly through it but have the whole thing be rape.
The police and justice system need to be held accountable to the standard of the victim’s perception of the event. Can’t our fight be to raise awareness where it needs to be raised? Is the battle with each other over who bests understands tenets of feminism important enough to expend copious amounts of bandwidth when cops and the justice system look at a video and determine a rape victim isn’t a rape victim because of how they determined she acted and how they determined her consent?
Is winning a feminist battle with each other important when we lose the war to combat rape?
February 9, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I just want to interject and say that whoever is comparing my like of getting horizontal with people of my own sex to beating the shit out of people for fun can kindly go fuck themselves.
If you can’t see the obvious difference between BDSM and homosexuality, get the fuck out of dodge. Seriously.
February 10, 2009 at 1:03 AM
If exploring your “dark side” entails wanking to women being tortured, it might be best to leave it unexplored. Or kill yourself.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read Jay Wiseman’s book, SM101? It’s a very well-known BDSM primer.
Here’s a quotation from page 27, where Wiseman is talking about what he went through when he first started acknowledging his BDSM desires:
I went to the library of nearby Sonoma State College and looked through its library section to see what I could learn. What I found was grim. There were a few books that talked about sexual sadism and its often-murderous results. One especially disturbing book contained numerous police photographs of rape/murder victims. The sight of these women’s bodies, often horribly mutilated, sickened me and terrified me more than I can say. Was I turning into a person who might someday do something like that?
I decided to keep myself under surveillance. I made up my mind that I was not going to allow myself to hurt anybody. If I thought I was turning into someone that would harm somebody else, then I would either put myself into a mental institution or commit suicide. And thus I lived, waiting and watching to see if I was turning into someone that I needed to shoot.
If Jay Wiseman had killed himself, he would never have written SM101, which has taught thousands of people how to practice BDSM safely.
Just saying.
February 10, 2009 at 1:08 AM
Great point. I guess that invalidates everything I’ve had to say.
February 10, 2009 at 1:23 AM
>>>Forlock – Radical feminism is not patriarchy in reverse. Radical feminists just don’t think that sex takes place in a vacuum where choice renders patriarchy irrelevant. You know you’re mischaracterizing the radfem position. Stop being dishonest.>>>
Nine Deuce, what I think is that radical feminists are placing far, far too much emphasis on sexuality, to a completely obsessive and unhealthy degree. If the subject is not prostitution, then it’s pornography, and if it’s not pornography, then it’s BDSM. It leads me to think that you don’t care about oppression of women in it’s other forms, such as economic and social oppression.
In other words, a woman can slave away in an Indonesian factory making Nike shoes for a dollar a day, but if she starts spreading her legs for ten times as much, then she’s “horribly oppressed by the patriarchy”. Do you really and honestly think I can’t see through this nonsense? It may be patriarchal, according to you, to exchange sex for cash, but the REAL patriarchy, according to ME, is having to slave away in the factory. Why? Because the dollar-a-day factory job is what causes the temptation and desire to earn ten times as much selling sex. So the REAL oppression starts in the factory, and not the other way around.
As a feminist, Nine Deuce, you should be focused on women’s lack of education, health care, and lack of job and career opportunities worldwide. And you should also recognize and be concerned about the oppression of women that is NOT inherently sexual in nature, such as the plight of widows in India, and the gender apartheid practiced in parts of the Middle East. I can guarantee you that Afghan women for the most part have other things to worry about besides BDSM or pornography. They worry about where their next meal is coming from.
Something to think about, isn’t it.
February 10, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Wow, that argument has never been made before about feminists, forlock. No, no, it’s never been made at all! And certainly not by a man talking to a feminist woman. You’re so original and SO much better at this feminism stuff than the rest of us wimminz!
Oh wait.
February 10, 2009 at 2:26 AM
the REAL patriarchy, according to ME, is having to slave away in the factory. Why? Because the dollar-a-day factory job is what causes the temptation and desire to earn ten times as much selling sex.
No, it’s because men slave away in factories as well as women, and therefore you can manage to stir yourself to empathize with them, whereas prostitution is something that mainly women do (oh, and children, who I’m sure are showing lost of agency by “spreading their legs”) so you can’t manage to get up the empathy to think about what paying $900 a month for a room in a trailer in the desert plastered with pornography and being fucked by any man who picks you at any time of day or night would be like – and this is legal and supposedly regulated prostitution I’m describing here.
After all, we’re women. Getting fucked is what we’re for. Getting fucked a few more times, or a few dozen, or a few thousand, couldn’t hurt us, could it?
Maybe you should go help some women slaving away in factories instead of charging in like an Internet white night to save feminism from the deluded little ladies.
February 10, 2009 at 3:16 AM
jenn
i’ll stop comparing the amount of shaming and shit people of the same sex get for fucking when people like you stop shaming me for the way i fuck. if you want to have a discussion about gender norms and imbalance of power and how they relate to BDSM fine. i’m there with bells on. but stop pretending like you want that, when you clearly don’t.
February 10, 2009 at 3:25 AM
“Great point. I guess that invalidates everything I’ve had to say.”
Wow. Are you actually trying to have a productive conversation or just showcase your sarcasm?
February 10, 2009 at 3:32 AM
It just seemed tertiary and didn’t really address the argument at all.
February 10, 2009 at 3:42 AM
>>Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression, meta. >>
Isn’t feminism aobut freeing women from oppression of from any gender? Oppression is oppression. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we fought to free everyone from oppression. I don’t want a man to be oppressed anymore than than I want a woman to be. I’m also not born better than 49 percent of the population by virtue of being born female.
February 10, 2009 at 3:57 AM
As a lesbian, I would like to say a sincere fuck you to people comparing BDSM to homosexuality. Gay people have been raped, beaten and killed for their sexuality. We have limited legal rights and a whole lot of crap thrown on us. The BDSM that ND is talking about here is directly in line with patriarchal norms and by definition involves hurting people.
Just because we want something doesn’t make it right. Being aroused by domination is something we’ve been programmed to do since birth. That doesn’t mean we should hurt people or celebrate pain. And you know what? I will shame people that hurt other people, because in my opinion that is part of the social contract (and it isn’t the sex that is shameful).
I recognise that the people who practice BDSM are complex individuals who deserve human rights. That is why I hope that some of them actually read the post and these comments with an open mind.
February 10, 2009 at 4:01 AM
I’ll try to be clearer.
1) Many BDSMers actually do feel very deep and significant shame about our sexuality, including thoughts of suicide.
2) This includes some really smart and productive kinksters like Jay Wiseman, who have done a lot to establish safe/sane/consensual BDSM practices.
3) Would you rather Jay Wiseman had killed himself, than that he wrote SM101 — which has taught thousands of BDSMers how to have safe/sane/consensual relationships?
I get that you have a problem with BDSM, intrinsically. I disagree with your position, but you are obviously very angry and very passionate, and I don’t think that it will be productive to engage you on the question of “Is BDSM really fucked up or not?” or “Hey guys, just look at Kink.com, how horrible is that?!”
What I think is more productive is this question: Assuming that BDSMers are going to be practicing BDSM no matter how much people try to shame us out of it (and I assure you that we will) … then how can we ensure that BDSM is usually safe/sane/consensual?
That is: Even if we assume that BDSM is horrible and fucked up … what can we do to ensure that the people who do it are doing it in the safest way possible?
And my answer is this: If people like you would show some compassion and stop using hate speech like “kill yourself” — and would start considering that the way you talk about BDSM is influencing real people who feel real shame and real despair — then
(a) kinksters would be less likely to entertain thoughts of suicide — or commit suicide,
(b) kinksters would feel more comfortable leading workshops and writing books that teach other kinksters how to do BDSM safely,
(c) therefore, the people who are actually out there doing BDSM would be less likely to get hurt.
Since you’re coming down so hard on Kink.com — which is probably one of the most ethical porn companies out there, including mainstream porn companies — well, I must assume that you don’t agree that consent makes BDSM okay.
But whether or not you think consent makes BDSM okay … you must admit that BDSM between consenting partners, who know what they are doing, is better than BDSM between partners who don’t understand themselves or their practices. And therefore, you must admit that shaming kinksters into silence and/or suicide is counterproductive.
There is going to be BDSM and there is going to be BDSM porn, no matter how much you rail against it. It fills a very real emotional and sexual need for us, whether you understand that or not. And since these things are going to exist — evil or not, fucked up or not — it’s better that we do them in very careful, well-trained, consenting ways.
Kink.com may not be perfect, but at least it’s trying to create an environment where BDSM porn is done in a careful, consenting way.
So is Jay Wiseman. Who entertained thoughts of suicide because of people like you.
February 10, 2009 at 4:03 AM
“Isn’t feminism aobut freeing women from oppression of from any gender? Oppression is oppression. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we fought to free everyone from oppression. I don’t want a man to be oppressed anymore than than I want a woman to be. I’m also not born better than 49 percent of the population by virtue of being born female.”
Aren’t straw arguments fun? FFS Zeta, where has anyone in this comment thread suggested that women are superior to men? Feminists are trying to free everyone from oppression, and in the case of radical feminists, from oppressive gender roles. Women are fucked over on this world right now, and trying to stop that IS making the world a better place.
February 10, 2009 at 6:00 AM
“As a lesbian, I would like to say a sincere fuck you to people comparing BDSM to homosexuality”
As a queer person myself, I would like to say a sincere fuck you to people who claim that I ought to see my BDSM and my queerness differently.
February 10, 2009 at 6:09 AM
“And my answer is this: If people like you would show some compassion and stop using hate speech like “kill yourself” — and would start considering that the way you talk about BDSM is influencing real people who feel real shame and real despair — then
(a) kinksters would be less likely to entertain thoughts of suicide — or commit suicide,”
The thing is, Clarisse, that I honestly think some of these folks think it’s GOOD that we think of suicide.
I don’t think anyone in here is actually saying “Go kill yourself” and meaning it.
But I do think that people are saying the world would be safer and sparklier and better if we were not in it.
They wouldn’t hand us the guns or the pills — most people aren’t that cruel — but as long as our despair is not directly their doing, they don’t care. They don’t see us as fully human.
Until they do, this won’t get anywhere. We can talk about how alienated it makes us feel, but until they accept that we are no less people than they are, our stories of nearly killing ourselves will be amusing to them. They will laugh at our weakness, and that will be that.
It won’t ever occur to them that it’s the same despair that drives the gay youth to believe she should be dead. In fact, the comparison will offend.
Until we are people to them, this is nothing but dark fun.
February 10, 2009 at 6:14 AM
It isn’t a straw argument. I was referring to this
>>>>>Feminism is about freeing women from male oppression, meta. This “choice” argument was created by anti-feminists who wanted to claim that every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice which is clearly ridiculous.>>>
I thought I’d quoted it in the above post, obviously I neglected to quote my point of reference. My apologies for confusion caused. My point was to ask about the statement of feminism being about freeing women from male oppression. And why it is specific to male oppression.
>>where has anyone in this comment thread suggested that women are superior to men?>>
My bad, the lack of quote as a point of reference totally threw off the way the post read. My only point was concern about feminism being about freeing women from male oppression. I am trying to gain understanding of why it was parsed that way. My point is, IMO, an oppressor is an oppressor regardless of gender.
<>
Agreed.
What is FFS? I don’t know what the acronym means. So it’s hard to respond to it.
>>and in the case of radical feminists, from oppressive gender roles>>
As long as radical feminists are respecting that we all have differing views of gender roles. It isn’t inherently wrong to choose a different path. I lived with a radical feminist roommate when I was a flight attendant. When hired we got our uniform choices, white blouse w/blazer/tie thing, navy blue pants, or the same thing with a navy blue skirt, or a navy blue dress.
After a first week in which many senior F/A’s told me I would come to learn to hate the white top/pants combo and to go with the dress. They were right.
My rad fem roommate went ballistic. She saw taking the dress option as anti feminist, enforcing the patriarchal view of women as objects having to expose their bodies, wear attire considered traditional to women. She felt that I was doing it make a spectacle out of myself for me, for being brainwashed by the patriarchy to believe I had to look a certain way because of male gaze. It was a constant argument that she wouldn’t let go of.
Only she didn’t listen. It had nothing to do with choosing to be an object for me, first I’m a lesbian, I don’t care what men think of my appearance, but what she didn’t know because she wasn’t a flight attendant is the white top is a nightmare in turbulence. Drinks get spilled on it that stain, which is hard to get out, requiring a run to the laundry room at 2 am after arriving at 11, taking the shuttle from the airport to the hotel, checking in, dealing with all that, or paying hotel dry cleaning to rush, which wasn’t comped by the airline, only to get back to the airport at 8 the next morning. The dress was deep navy blue, if something spilled on it, it didn’t show much, it didn’t wrinkle, the blouse was awful for wrinkling, Blazer had to be worn over the vest, over the top with the tie thing, or one layer with the dress and no polyester pants that cause everyone to break out.
My point for this huge post on flight attendant fashions. To my roommate the dress was tantamount to betraying feminism. Making women feel like they have to wear the dress, supporting traditional gender roles/ooppressive gender roles etc, trying to be a spectacle,,, But it wasn’t any of that. It was nothing more than the dress was more comfortable than the pants/top uniform, and way less maintenance. Meaning more sleep time on short turn layovers in between 14 hour days.
My roommate’s belief was that taking the dress option away was a victory for feminism. This was a point she felt strongly enough to make it a fight virtually every day. I don’t see me or other women having to wear something high maintenance and something that we felt was really uncomfortable as a victory for women just to take away the option for the sake of challenging what some deem an oppressive gender role. Those feeling oppressed about wearing the dress had the pants option. It can also be a case of oppressive gender role being enforced by radical feminism if I am told that I have to wear uncomfortable clothes for the sake of someone elses interpretation of gender role. Especially when none of it even applied to the feminists as none of them were flight attendants.
Now the makeup and 2 inch heel requirement for female employees. That I didn’t like and tried to challenge. Why is a mans face ok as long as he shaves but a woman has to have all this make up on. Why is he fine on flat shoes but I and other women by virtue of being female have to wear heels. This was an absolute requirement. For a job walking endlessly on inclines. The make up the heels should be a choice. Although I question the heels from a safety issue perspective in the event of an evacuation. Again, the radical feminist perspective was I should break dress code knowing I will get fired because that is the best way to fight oppression. But it isn’t. It would have enhanced my oppression to lose a job I genuinely liked to be a proxy soldier in a war that I didn’t wish to take part in.
These things tend to be subjective. The whole endless drama about my uniform choice. Was that really the best use of bandwidth in fighting oppression? My point in this huge post is that we often view things differently from others and that in many things, what is right, what is wrong, what is worth a battle, what is fighting a battle and losing the war, and what seems like a noble freeing goal may not free another woman. And because she sees it differently than the radical feminist doesn’t make her anti feminist, doesn’t mean she isn’t understanding feminism. Her feminism may be that women should have the right and be supported in the right to make reasonable choices.
Any theory that verges into constantly telling what is right and wrong and not being flexible about diversity, differences of worldview, and focuses on compliance more than objective of ending oppression. That becomes an theory that may need to be re-evaluated
February 10, 2009 at 7:46 AM
Until you have been to that edge, and have been brought back by someone you have put your trust in fully, you don’t know what you are talking about and you are not qualified to comment.
Even as a dominant, I never initially understood. I knew my bottoms liked it, begged for pain I would provide for them — I was confused, so as an experiment, I was singletail whipped for a few hours — and after that, I was able to understand.
But I, (or kink.com,likely) am not asking you to “get it” because you would have to want it, in order to seek it out, like the women in these videos. So in line with “keep your laws off my body” I will add, “Keep your judgments off my libido.”
Furthermore, It should be pointed out that the kink ‘scene’ doesn’t really deal in orgasms — It deals in full on catharsis through sexual acts. Maybe this is where your logic trips over its hubris. It may be worth examining.
February 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM
FFS: “For fuck’s sake”.
As for the comparison of homosexuality and BDSM, I can see the value of it, but yes, the similarities are fairly superficial.
“As long as radical feminists are respecting that we all have differing views of gender roles. It isn’t inherently wrong to choose a different path.”
Seconded.
February 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM
“If Jay Wiseman had killed himself, he would never have written SM101, which has taught thousands of people how to practice BDSM safely.”
Don’t you mean:
“If Jay Wiseman had killed himself, he would never have written SM101, which has taught thousands of people how to practice BDSM.”
He was spreading the word on sexual torture, not acting as a Health and Safety Officer.
It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? The choice really isn’t sadism or death, no matter what the manipulative try to persuade us.
February 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM
“Patriarchy wins in an environment where bandwidth is expended fighting to enforce one view of radical feminism.”
Actually patriarchy wins when you try to cut out the key component of feminism which is to overthrow male supremacy and end male oppression of women.
Both BDSM and patriarchy win when feminism is redefined as “every choice a woman makes is a feminist choice, therefore a man beating a woman is doing something feminist as long as she wants it”.
This redefinition came from the academy (as Meta says she studied Women’s Studies) not from grassroots feminism. It’s part of the backlash.
February 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM
[...] one might think they’d also think of other kinds of trauma… but no.Then there was the repeated and consistent condescension towards Meta – a declared submissive female – and the vitrio… And there was attitude where they were telling Meta that she couldn’t be a feminist that way, [...]
February 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM
You know Delpyne, your arrogance and sarcasm are tools of abuse. Taking on the behaviors of an oppressor isn’t overthrowing anything. Just repeating the cycle. Call me feeling feminist choice or lack thereof, but I don’t like being the target of your abuse any more than I do of some chauvinistic prick.
For radical feminism to overthrow patriarchy, you are going to need a lot more supporters than you have now. You do a disservice to fighting partriarchy and to your cause with shit like this. I don’t interact relentlessly with people exhibiting abusive behavior. Further conversation between us is going to require you leave the abusive behaviors aside.
You can believe strongly in radical feminism and your views. We all feel strongly about our views. When you use abusive behavior to express yourself. That isn’t advancing social justice. That is replicating abuse.
February 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I find it very ironic that Delphyne is being accused of being abusive here. Could you please be specific about the parts of her posts that you found abusive?
February 10, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I don’t think I’ve been sarcastic and being sure of what I know isn’t arrogance.
It is the height of arrogance to try and redefine a political movement created for the liberation of one group of people from the oppression of another, to suit your own personal objectives. Maybe what you are responding to is the anger I feel at that Zeta.
I certainly don’t need you telling me how to achieve radical feminist goals, again a very arrogant way of you to behave. Maybe you are projecting your own arrogance on to me. I’d also be happy for you not to comment on any of my posts as I prefer not to attempt communication with people who are being manipulative.
February 10, 2009 at 2:33 PM
It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? ” (Delphyne)
Ever hear of the Anti-Gay movement? Same thing that you said right there. “Why don’t you just ignore you sexual desires and go get yourself a nice picket fence.” (The book, “The New Victorians” By Denefeld, comes to mind)
I believe Zeta is right on when she calls some of the statements abusive in spirit. And I find it amusing that actual non-consensual abuse is the only way feminists who “don’t understand” can react or incite dialogue.
Parable moment: Mich.Women’s Music Festival, 25 odd years ago, some women were consensually practicing BDSM, and they were all physically beaten up by women on ‘the land’. — They physically assaulted these women, because they chose to hold on to their judgments of those women more dearly than principles surrounding choice, understanding, strength, communication.
Tools of the master, indeed.
February 10, 2009 at 3:21 PM
“It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? The choice really isn’t sadism or death, no matter what the manipulative try to persuade us.”
You know, this sounds a lot like what Christians say about gays – the love the sinner hate the sin crap. That it’s ok to be gay as long as you’re celibate.
I tried, I really tried for years and years and years to suppress my kinky fantasies. I felt awful about them, I thought they were disgusting, I thought I was disgusting for having them. Didn’t make them go away though. And I feel far better about myself as a human being – as a woman – since I have come to accept that side of me and been able to express some of those fantasies in consensual BDSM.
February 10, 2009 at 3:25 PM
nd: It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? The choice really isn’t sadism or death, no matter what the manipulative try to persuade us.
The above would really upset me if it were talking about trans issues or GLBT activism. It shows absolutely NO empathy or attempt to listen, along with telling everyone in this discussion who is involved with BDSM that they should just “be like everyone else.”
I cannot agree more with Zeta about this:
Any theory that verges into constantly telling what is right and wrong and not being flexible about diversity, differences of worldview, and focuses on compliance more than objective of ending oppression. That becomes an theory that may need to be re-evaluated
ND, what I dislike about many of your supporters, and in some parts you yourself, is that the Vangaurdist attitude. Regardless of what you think, or how you wish to come off, a large part of the reaction that are getting is because it feels like you think you know how things should be and will help us poor unenlightened to get it right.
While I am not 100% about the comparison between being GLBT and being into Kink, I do know that the language being used here is the exact same painful language I’ve had directed at me about trans issues. Calling people rapists, abusers, throwing the assertion that they should disregard their own life and happiness in an attempt to defy gender norms… All of this has been directed at me before. All of it comes from a place of privilege and disregard for others.
Do I like the language and attitude coming from some of the others? No, but I’m not surprised considering condemnation in the tone of the article and the early comments.
February 10, 2009 at 3:37 PM
I’m getting terrifically annoyed with these facile comparisons between BDSM and homosexuality. I think I’d like everyone to stop making them. If there are lesbian or gay readers who want to discuss the comparison, I’m all ears, but I find the analogy weak and offensive.
I’m also a little sick of hearing the language that ought to be reserved for oppressed groups deployed in defense of what MANY of you have repeatedly described as a lifestyle choice. Women are oppressed, lesbians and gay men are oppressed, people of color are oppressed. I’m not ready to weaken the rhetorical tools those groups have at their disposal to discuss their situations with by allowing just any old group of people to co-opt them. “Abuse” and “oppression” are serious charges, and I’ll not have the terms watered down by people claiming they’re being abused because someone doesn’t approve of their choices or that they’re being oppressed because someone questions the theoretical validity of their justifications for their behavior.
As to my supposed paternalism, it’s bullshit. I’ve said over and over that I don’t particularly care what anyone chooses to do, but I do have the right to voice my opinions and challenge those I disagree with. Would you rather I deny your agency by assuming you’re too fragile to defend your beliefs?
February 10, 2009 at 3:51 PM
“I’m getting terrifically annoyed with these facile comparisons between BDSM and homosexuality. I think I’d like everyone to stop making them. If there are lesbian or gay readers who want to discuss the comparison, I’m all ears, but I find the analogy weak and offensive.”
ND,
If you’re not going to allow certain comments or kinds of speech in your comments, that’s your right and your business. However, if that’s so, can you answer me a few questions:
1) Are you bi/pan/omnisexual/queer yourself? Because I am bisexual, and it’s really bothering me to hear from someone who I’ve only ever seen talk about hetero relationships that I am misspeaking or being insulting when I talk about my own sexuality. If you are het — and you may not be, but I’ve never seen any indication otherwise — then you’re a member of an oppressor group here. So I think you should, bare minimum, be asking the people who you see making comparisons that offend you if they are hetero or not.
2) Supposing for a moment that you are bi/pan/omni/queer: what gives you the right or even the reason to challenge someone like me, who is saying “Look, I am BOTH bisexual AND sadomasochistic, and I don’t experience them any differently. Both of them, in my experience, are unchangeable and are a basic part of how my sexuality functions. People telling me I ought not be sadomasochistic is going to be precisely as effective as telling me I ought not desire other women.”
February 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
“You know, this sounds a lot like what Christians say about gays – the love the sinner hate the sin crap. That it’s ok to be gay as long as you’re celibate.”
I was responding to this:
“If I thought I was turning into someone that would harm somebody else, then I would either put myself into a mental institution or commit suicide.”
Why not just stop what he was doing if he found it was changing him as a person in a way he didn’t want, rather than going to those overdramatic extremes?
And I call bullshit on the christianity charge – this mortification of the flesh, desire to endure pain for some greater good, and exultation in submission to a “master” sounds a lot more like fundie christianity and the way some fundamentalist women talk about the way their husbands fit in their lives than any radical feminist argument ever did. How do BDSMers differentiate yourselves from fundie christians when, apart from the god aspect, you share so many of the same values?
February 10, 2009 at 3:59 PM
It’s also not that revolutionary to make blogposts about how naughty BDSM is. Reactionaries do that all the time.
February 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM
“It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? The choice really isn’t sadism or death, no matter what the manipulative try to persuade us.”
You know, it’s really odd that you say this, given that the anti-SM folks commenting here have said over and over that they want dominant men to understand how horrible they are, to feel the psychic weight of being wrong and “getting off on harming women.”
The minute a dominant man says “Hey, I was suicidal because I really did think it would be better to harm myself than to harm women,” you think he’s being melodramatic?
No shit?
In comments to a post where somebody LITERALLY SAID “People like this should go kill themselves?”
I would’ve expected you folks to be happy he wanted to off himself, and angry that he came to what you believe is the wrong conclusion — that there’s no need for him to do this because his activities don’t do harm.
You think they do, and he should stop, right? Kill himself if he has to to do that, as the post suggests?
Yeah, those words were a melodramatic flourish on the part of ND.
But why the sudden and dizzying about face when someone says “actually, I can tell you the story of someone who worried about exactly that?”
February 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM
ND: I didn’t accuse you of paternalism, rather that your arguments and the arguments of the people who agree with you are structured in such a way that it implies a Vangaurdist attitude. The two are similar but not the same. I don’t know you, and this is the first interaction that I’ve had with you, so I try not to make snap judgments.
Beyond that, I *am* a lesbian, and I am a trans woman, and I am making the comparisons. Not to the discrimination that the two groups (and intersections) face, but rather to the language that is being used here and the language I have faced from anti-gay and anti-trans/trans-exclusionary people. I am uncomfortable with some of the way that Nik is comparing them, I think it is a bit too heavy handed and completely different from the original way the comparison was used. This discussion isn’t really a good place to dig into the details of the expanded comparison imho, because of how heated it has become and it is more than a bit outside the original scope.
February 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Delphyne I mean this response with every intent of being constructive, not flaming and simply a response with my feeling.
>>I don’t think I’ve been sarcastic and being sure of what I know isn’t arrogance.>>
Delphyne, with all due respect to the strength of your convictions. And for the record, I have no issue with people being sure of what they know. But you are presenting your answers to many people as though you are right and they are wrong. We are talking about belief structures here. Radical feminism has been important to me in my lifetime, has been part of many major healing processes and there are certainly many components to radical feminism that I agree with and hold to my own beliefs.
What you feel is being strong about what you know is to another person invaliding. Invalidating of many, some, who probably share many common views with. The fight against oppression needs passionate activists who have strength of their convictions. There is no doubt to any of us that do activism that there are many oppressors who will try to use intimidation to push people away from the fight against oppression through brute force. And that the need for strength of conviction is very important. Very important. No question.
In my opinion, there is also a case for having strong opinions but presenting them in ways in which the message isn’t being lost in the presentation. Even on issues that I agree with you both here and in other blogs, you convey such a strong sense of making others wrong or in expressing yourself in a manner that feels very disrespectful, invalidating and often times feels as a hostile, patronizing lecture. I don’t feel it is unfair to ask you to consider how your actions and form of communication, regardless of being well intentioned, may be causing harm. It is likely you don’t mean to do this. I”m not the only one what has said this kind of thing. Oppression, how it has impacted each of us, how it impacts each of us, is personal to each of us.
My life, my past, the oppression I have suffered, the oppression I have seen friends and loved ones suffer, those experiences are both similar and global to many others and but they are unique to me also. As they are for everyone. These differences impact our views on feminism and how we interpret it. Yours is no more wrong than mine. But it is no more right either. I don’t believe advocating respect and asking for consideration of how anyone’s strength of conviction is presented be reflected upon is either manipulative or malicious.
>>I certainly don’t need you telling me how to achieve radical feminist goals, >>
Fair enough, but that goes both ways Delphyne. To expect that it is fine for your to strongly do tihs but state to others that they shouldn’t isn’t a reasonable expectation.
>>Maybe you are projecting your own arrogance on to me.>>
I’m sorry it feels that way. It isn’t intended as such. My intent with you has been to draw a boundary because the overwhelming feeling I have from your responses is that they are unnecessarily aggressive, invalidating and that strength of views is being presented as you right, I and anyone who even partially disagrees with you as wrong.
>>I’d also be happy for you not to comment on any of my posts as I prefer not to attempt communication with people who are being manipulative.>>
That’s fine. I’ve answered your concerns in the previous post and will let it drop. I don’t have any desire or need to force communication with anyone. With one last caveat. This is my whole point about abuse. You labeled my discussion with you as manipulative. If it feels that way, I am willing to look at my actions and look for ways so that you don’t feel that sense because I am not trying to be manipulative. But you are presenting it as fact. And it isn’t fact. I respect that you may and probably don’t agree with me. I don’t want anyone’s belief in me via manipulated process. I’d rather someone disagree with me via honest construct than agree with me via dishonest. I have asked you to consider your actions. That consideration may result in you disagreeing entirely with me. And that’s fine. Nothing says I’m right and you’re wrong. This is a discussion of beliefs on oppression and how to combat it. I too believe in my views. If others are to believe in them that process has to be ethical. I’d rather that you and others disagree with me that agree via poor ethics like manipulation.
peace
Zeta
February 10, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Additionally, you seem to be ignoring their “Men in Pain” section.
February 10, 2009 at 5:11 PM
James – 3 sites out of 14 feature men. Your objection about gay porn has been addressed a zillion times. It may be true that reactionaries write against BDSM, but their analysis has a vastly different basis than mine. Lame objections.
February 10, 2009 at 5:12 PM
The thing is, Clarisse, that I honestly think some of these folks think it’s GOOD that we think of suicide.
Yeah, I think you’re right. Forgive me … as a white upper-middle-class straight woman, I’m just not accustomed to being part of a highly marginalized group. I keep assuming that if I just point out “hey, I’m human too” often enough, they’ll listen. I guess that says a lot about the privilege I’ve enjoyed so far.
He was spreading the word on sexual torture, not acting as a Health and Safety Officer.
It’s more than a little pathetic and overdramatic that he had to go “OMG I’m going to kill myself if it turns out I got this wrong”. How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else? The choice really isn’t sadism or death, no matter what the manipulative try to persuade us.
1) Do you really see no difference between consenting BDSM and sexual torture? Really?
1a) Just out of curiosity, do you see a difference between consenting sex and rape?
2) … I thought about responding to your “sadism or death” point, but you’re so determined to misread me that I can’t imagine how to explain myself. Oh well.
February 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM
“You labeled my discussion with you as manipulative. If it feels that way, I am willing to look at my actions and look for ways so that you don’t feel that sense because I am not trying to be manipulative. But you are presenting it as fact.”
You mean like the way you labeled my posts as replicating abuse, presenting it as a fact? –
“That isn’t advancing social justice. That is replicating abuse.”
You appear to be suffering from an extremely bad case of double standards, zeta. It’s also what I meant by manipulation. You want to be left free to say anything you choose about the way I post, but if I do likewise to you, it prompts a huge screed about how I’m doing things wrong and should do them differently. You don’t seem to understand that it isn’t up to you to monitor how I express my opinions or knowledge.
“My intent with you has been to draw a boundary because the overwhelming feeling I have from your responses is that they are unnecessarily aggressive, invalidating and that strength of views is being presented as you right, I and anyone who even partially disagrees with you as wrong.”
Again, almost every BDSMer here has been telling radical feminists we’re wrong and we don’t know what we’re talking about but that doesn’t seem to have registered with you. Please stop with the double standards. I’d ask you to consider your actions too, but it would be patronising as hell, so instead my advice would be if you don’t like my posts or my style – don’t read them.
February 10, 2009 at 5:39 PM
“I find it very ironic that Delphyne is being accused of being abusive here.”
I don’t. Zeta I think is Jill Brenneman, one of the sex pozzie gang who like to try and silence or shout down any hint of radical feminism they see popping up on the internet.
The “you’re abusive” charge to rad fems, is one of their commonest tactics.
You’ll see the twisted pretzel shapes Zeta/Jill is getting herself into trying to justify her charge against me. Including a whole lot of double standards. :D
February 10, 2009 at 5:42 PM
ND: true enough about the count, but as I said above, it’s a porn website. The number of het porn websites that are honestly and actively marked to women is very small, and regardless of the one gay section, it’s not really marketed to gay people as far as I can tell.
Doesn’t make it right, but it is wholly unsurprising and just as true (if not more so) of most other het porn sites, and is not BDSM or kink.com specific. Also, unsurprising given that you chose to focus on M/f and not any of the other types.
February 10, 2009 at 5:53 PM
James – 3 sites out of 14 feature men.
Yes. And how do they fit into your analysis?
Your objection about gay porn has been addressed a zillion times.
And not once has it been addressed well.
How can gay porn be misogynistic?
It may be true that reactionaries write against BDSM, but their analysis has a vastly different basis than mine. Lame objections.
For the most past this post relies upon shock material, a tactic identical to those used by the reactionaries. So far as I can tell you don’t perform any analysis, you simply say that you don’t wish to:
Live in a world where people jerk off to women being subjected to “contraptions used in countries such as China for torture.”
Which is simply a description of your Utopia. Then you say that you also don’t want to
Listen to women (or men) tell me that the women who participate in the creation of these videos for these disgusting motherfuckers to jerk off to do so because the shit feels “amazing.”
In which case I’d suggest you stop asking them, since coping with taking statements which contradict your ideology as in good faith is clearly causing you difficulties.
You don’t analyse the content, you impose your prejudices onto it. You disregard the “Happy aftermath” shots since you presume that you know better than the site’s designer what it’s audience wants best. You completely ignore the portion of the site which is dedicated to torturing men (a minority which you devote exactly no words to).
The one occasion when you subject it to any thorough analysis is here:
These sites aren’t about “exploring our dark sides,” they’re about giving free reign to the sickest of human desires, desires that are inculcated by a sexually repressed and guilt-ridden society that has yet to figure out how to deal with the detritus of religious dogma and has thus intertwined fear and hatred with sex to create the misogynistic shit heap we now live in.
And even then you fail to realise that those two claims do not contradict. Such websites are an exploration of the “dark side” of society and that side looks much as you describe it. I don’t see the break there. And it’s hardly surprising to me that when most men are heterosexuals, it’s women who will end up degraded most. Because it’s women that men desire.
(& at other times they turn it inwards and you get the men sets. It’s not who gets punished that really matters, here, it’s that punishment occurs. The source isn’t a Patriarchy, it’s residual religiosity and the fallout from its former dominance.)
As ever, you confuse hatred of sex with hatred of women.
February 10, 2009 at 6:28 PM
James – Of course the guilt associated with sex comes out as misogyny. Ever read the Bible? And do you not see something wrong with this quote?
February 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I am a queer woman. A former “leather titleholder.” and community leader. So it would seem that I am am qualified to comment on the BDSM/gay connection. Which I did make previously, that asking me to relinquish my kinked fantasies is the same as asking me to stop being gay.
Who, or how I choose to love myself, or consenting adults, is quite honestly not a place where I will allow you or others to place your judgments, or so whimsically suggest… “why don’t you just have ‘normal sex’, (and only the type of sex that you would approve of?)”
And while one would like to think that someone’s kinky private, consensual sex life is not grounds for oppression, you haven’t done your homework. Personally, I have felt more oppression for being kinky than for being queer.
For kinky people, children’s custody has been threatened, jobs have been at stake and lost, familial relationships damaged, self shaming, marriages ended, arrests have been made based on consensual acts by officers who didn’t understand what was going on, reputations slandered. Sounds exactly like oppression to me.
There is still a lot at risk for an outed kinked individual, and it is about who you choose to love and how you choose to love them. I would the shame and fear levels, on par with being gay around 1999. In the United States these days, you won’t get shot for it like Milk, or tied to a fencepost in Wyoming and left to die, but you could get a good deal of trouble for admitting your desires.
February 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM
I’m not suggesting what kind of sex you ought to have. I’m saying I’m concerned with M/f BDSM when we live in a world in which sex is used as a tool of oppression against women.
February 10, 2009 at 6:36 PM
And it’s hardly surprising to me that when most men are heterosexuals, it’s women who will end up degraded most.
I would say that the portrayal (on the internet) is more focused with this skew, because men, have the added economic influence to affect the pornography trade, and therefore the images they want to see, in aggregate.
February 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM
I was referring to Delphyne (11:38 )refferring to Jay Wiseman: How about he just stopped doing it and then carried on living his life like everybody else?
And you kind of are telling me what kind of sex to have… though not directly — you would prefer to call my fantasies “sick” and my lovers “disgusting motherfuckers”.
You are seeing “tools of oppression” where clear choices, regardless of gender have been made. You see these acts through the lens of judgment. It is the act of choosing that is empowering… not the choice chosen. Being able admit your desire, and voice it, and find a loving place where that desire is met, in a controlled way. That’s not oppression. That is liberation. And regardless of your desire, may we all be so lucky.
February 10, 2009 at 7:05 PM
Wow. Interesting attack. I identify as a queer/dyke feminist and I’m part of the BDSM community. It’s a shame that people who call themselves feminists completely invalidate a woman’s sexual agency.
I might have agreed with you before I discovered the power of submission. Also, you need to consider that the BDSM community that you claim perpetuates violence against women and the patriarchy is only a portion of the BDSM community.
In fact, its a mysogynist perspective to assume that this is the only type of power dynamic in BDSM play.
I know the models who work at Kink.com and who love it. I also validate those who had a negative experience.
Kink.com goes to great lengths to establish consent from the models and honestly wants models who are really into the BDSM acts.
Porn is hotter when people are into it.
Issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment happen at any type of institution and the porn industry is definitely not immune to it.
All I know is that Kink.com is a diverse working environment with female and queer directors. It is an alternative porn company and you’re article is evidence that you’re ignorant of a lifestyle that many women find empowering.
Don’t deny us the reclamation of that power.
p.s. you should try ropes sometime;)
February 10, 2009 at 7:06 PM
James – Of course the guilt associated with sex comes out as misogyny. Ever read the Bible?
Yes. Which bits do you mean?
And do you not see something wrong with this quote?
Well if women are the focus of their arousal then it would follow that women are going to be the targets. Because they’re the one’s men are looking at sexually. You could say that porn should show more balance but porn is mostly watched by men, or at least so think the pornographers.
I don’t think that it could safely be said that this is what all sadism amounts to, though. The roots of sadism are hazy (some suggest that they are around because every society needs a punishers and unless people enjoyed inflicting it punishments would become lenient in practice, which sounds plausible but non-falsifiable) but although I’m optimistic and eager (I subscribe to Utilitarianism and sadists who don’t care whether the person they’re hurting appreciates it or not are about as anti-utilitarian as you can get) with regards to reducing the amount of it I don’t think that sadism as a tendency is eradicable.
So even in the ideal gender binary free world there would still be sites like kink.com.
February 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM
No, dude, your quote said that because most of the people looking at the stuff were hetero, then most of the people being degraded would be women. Why does heterosexuality necessitate women’s degradation?
February 10, 2009 at 7:16 PM
I would say that the portrayal (on the internet) is more focused with this skew, because men, have the added economic influence to affect the pornography trade, and therefore the images they want to see, in aggregate.
I would agree, but am interested as to what electoral system members of your community engaged in to decide upon you as their leader.
February 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Now people need to be elected before they can have an opinion? You’re being an asshole, James.
February 10, 2009 at 7:28 PM
No, dude, your quote said that because most of the people looking at the stuff were hetero, then most of the people being degraded would be women. Why does heterosexuality necessitate women’s degradation?
It wouldn’t by itself, but when existing within a firmly anti-sex culture any form of sexuality will end up distorted as a consequence.
I’d say that that’s to a large extent no longer true of the culture of America or England (the country you and I live in respectively, so far as I’m aware) but we’re still struggling with the aftermath and have a lot of remnants lying around. Accordingly you’d anticipate that when most observers of porn are men and most men are straight the gender who you’ll see humiliated etc most are the women.
It’s not because they’re women, it’s because they’re the focus of sexual interest. The observer wants to consider them in a fashion which is sexual while also sustaining the worldview they have in place. When there’s no God in the skies and no Mujuhadeen driving through the streets how can that be done? By physical punishment and general subjugation.
Which is pretty much what you said, but I don’t see hatred of women really coming into it. It’s hatred of lust. It’s people getting “What they deserve”.
February 10, 2009 at 7:29 PM
ND – They don’t, but RE described herself as a “community leader”.
February 10, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Not a defence for the Kink.Com site as much as a defence for the ‘lifestyle’ of BDSM – because for some of us it’s not a game.
See this collar i’m wearing ? I’m not wearing it because of fashion. I’m not wearing it because i play momentary games of ‘Dominance and submission’
I’m wearing this collar bacause i want to; because i’ve given myself completely to my husband and, though we don’t usually need the term as such, ‘Master’. If He feels the need to treat me like a pet, He will, and i’ll act accordingly. If He feels i should be degraded, more power to Him – i for one know i’d be bored to tears without.
I know He loves me, without Him needing to tell me; it’s in every look he gives me, in every touch, and every word.
I want Him to be my superior, even though He doesn’t think of himself as anything more or less than me; He understands my need to have someone ‘above’ me, to take care of me, dote over me, love me – what is ‘Sick’ about that ? I want to show my love to him in subservience, and He not only accepts, but encourages me to be that wich i want to be: His.
His pet. His wife. His lover. His in every possible way.
Yes, He treats me like a pet; He keeps me fed, happy, nurtured, cared for, and healthy.
He punishes me when i deserve or crave it – i can’t think of many men who’d have the guts to do to me what He does without an inch of guilt, because of society’s programmed ‘Hurting Woman, Bad’.
He puts up with beeing arrested for kissing me in public, when i forget to bring ID
Not only that but He actually thinks it’s funny.
He’s saved me from myself on more than one occasion – see the last line of this post for particulars – and has never faulted me for my weak moments.
He is the first – and only – man i’ve ever felth love for; ever since my obsessive crush on Him when i was just age three.
I want Him to know i am His. I’ve trusted Him, and still trust Him, to be able to care for me in the way i want – and need – to be cared for. I trust Him, and i know he won’t betray this trust.
I’m wearing this collar as a visible token of that; my love for Him, my giving myself to Him, and my trust in Him.
If there’s ‘wrong’ in that, then i don’t care to be ‘right’.
P.S. – I was never brainwashed. In fact, if i hadn’t agressively come onto Him, i’d still be single. Without a doubt. Hormonal birth defects are fun that way – and if you want the particulars of -that-, feel free to mail me.
February 10, 2009 at 7:57 PM
to echo Fivestar, i actually am friends with several people who model for kink.com and who love it. it’s one of the most progressive adult entertainment companies in the country, with full-time employees receiving salary and full benefits and models competing – yes shocking i know, that many adult entertainers would give their right tit to be featured on a site as “degrading” as kink.com – for some of the highest rates in the industry. not to even mention that all models sign a consent form before even being allowed to be photographed. i know you dworkinites have a vendetta against the adult entertainment industry in general but could you at least do some research before attacking a company that many consider to be a gold standard as far as ethical practices are concerned?
additionally i find it really insulting that you’re making assumptions about the models’ agency based on the photos on the site. while bdsm clearly isn’t your thing, that doesn’t give you the right to pass judgment on an entire lifestyle and on the desires and wishes of the many women who find themselves drawn to it. just because you don’t get why any woman would enjoy the safe, sane and consensual exploration of pain doesn’t automatically mean that the activities depicted on kink.com are non-consensual.
i mean if you’re going to criticise the sexual desires of an entire lifestyle, why stop at bdsm? clearly FtM transpeople are just brainwashed by the patriarchy into renouncing their female identity, right? are you gonna start saying that women who engage in sex work deserve to be raped? oh wait, i actually HAVE heard that argument from a 2nd-wave feminist.
and no, i’m not a kink.com employee, a pornstar or a closet man. i’m just a REAL feminist.
February 10, 2009 at 8:03 PM
ps way to rip off the name of my first favourite band with a stupid pun. triple-dog BOO.
February 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM
I didn’t make any assumptions about the consent of the models. You’re trying to polish a turd by telling me Kink.com treats its employees relatively well. They’re still profiting off of images of women being tortured, whether those women are into it or not. And thanks for telling me I’m not a real feminist because I don’t think torture porn is good for women.
February 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Some women do enjoy bdsm. I’m one of them.
You give all feminists a bad name.
Why don’t you blog about something you understand?
Man-hating is so over and done with. Unless, of course, it’s consensual. ;)
February 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
I was making fun of your favorite band with the site name. I used to make fun of people who were overly angsty by referring to their “raging against” whatever, and the site name was a way to be a little tongue-in-cheek about things, to not take myself completely seriously. You are a fucking dork if you like Rage Against the Machine. Oh, and you’re also an asshole for thinking you get to decide who is a real feminist, which even I don’t do. So piss off.
February 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Sigh. I don’t know anything about feminism. Hilarious.
February 10, 2009 at 8:16 PM
You say dork like it’s a bad thing!
February 10, 2009 at 8:20 PM
Not always, but in this case it is. Listening to pseudo-revolutionary corporate rock makes you the dork of the century. “Fuck the law, man! Where do I get me a $30 Che Guevara t-shirt?”
February 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM
“And thanks for telling me I’m not a real feminist because I don’t think torture porn is good for women.”
Well various women have posted here saying that this is what arouses them, and your post (like all of your posts on the matter) has presented BDSM as disgusting, reprehensible, unacceptable, (inexplicably) inherently degrading and pathetic.
Indeed, you’ve even described the endlessly imaginative website, kink.com, as “Boring”.
So are you actually acting in women’s best interests here? Are you advancing their liberty through your condemnations? Do you know what’s best for them or do they?
February 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM
“What cop is going to take the claims of a rape victim seriously who has been taped allowing herself to be tortured?”
They won’t. Maybe you should join us in fighting the stigmatization of kinky people, to the point where it’s very difficult to get a rape charge to stick against someone who enjoys rough sex, instead of exacerbating the problem.
“Even if it is ‘consensual’, it still amounts to images of men torturing women. It is still sexualising the humiliation and degradation of women. How the hell can anyone think that’s okay?! It’s beyond me.”
Because they’re big girls and don’t need the armies of patriarchal feminists to protect them from themselves? Because rejecting the consent defense marginalizes these women and puts their sexuality outside their control? Because it others them and refuses to accept them as human, with a faculty of free will, introspection, and choice?
I’ve been pissed on; I’ve been called a slut; I’ve done a lot that’s humiliating in the quest for sexual gratification. By far the most injurious affront to my dignity I have ever been accosted with has been the assertion by people that do not know me that my faculty of reason and choice has been hopelessly compromised because of the choices I’ve made.
I certainly acknowledge that my desires have been shaped by social forces outside my control. I just don’t care. A thing’s meaning lies in its experience, not in its genesis. If you are a nonbeliever who thinks evolution is correct, then the cause of our sexuality is merely a base need to keep the species going. If the cause of something is its meaning, then there is no meaning to be found in this other than an odd misfiring of the desire to reproduce. But even if this is the cause of my sexual longings, that does not for a moment detract from the love that a newly married couple feels. It does not invalidate the profound experiences I have kneeling at the feet of my master, or the heights of ecstasy I experience when I’m pushed to my limits. Whether or not I’ve bene conditioned by patriarchy (and as a male sub, it’s kind of difficult to contend that I have been), nothing can take away the link I feel with my Master.
“…pornography that inherently approves of non-consensual sex, torture, rape, abuse, and battery”
your sex:rape::my sex:rape
Look, a BDSM top (avoiding the word sadist owing to cultural baggage) fundamentally gets off on the experience of his or her partner. I don’t think any of them could get off by whipping a plastic dummy: it’s clearly not the physical motions that excite them. So does a rapist’s. So the question is, what experience are they getting off on? As a bottom myself, though I have never been raped, I’m pretty damn sure my experiences differ considerably from those of a person being raped. After all, I consider them uniformly positive experiences, and integral to my sexual satisfaction as well as exploring my sense of self, whereas rape is uniformly a negative experience. If a BDSM top’s enjoyment depends upon the experience of the individual, and the experience of that individual differs in no small way from that of a person being raped, then they have nothing in common but appearances.
To wit: the enjoyment of a BDSM top depends in most cases upon the enjoyment of the bottom.
“Firefly – I’m not comfortable with this analogy people keep making between BDSM and homosexuality. There is an element of power and oppression involved in BDSM that is not inherent in homosexual encounters. And as someone who believes that sexual orientation is not a choice, I don’t like the comparison either (though I’d rather leave the analysis of this comparison to readers who aren’t heterosexual). I don’t appreciate being compared to people who supported Prop. 8 because I’ve got some serious moral and theoretical problems with the intermingling of sex and power while we live in a misogynistic society.”
Do you really think that any of us chose to be kinky?
You’re right that the objections to homosexuality are different than those to kinky people. Being kinky may in fact be a bad sexual orientation, as I consider pedophilia to be. But that doesn’t change the fact that it is a sexual orientation, inasmuch as it is something that is integral to a person’s identity, surfaces early, is not chosen, and if it can be changed, can be changed only with extremely strenuous effort (I am one of the few people here who consider that sexual orientation can be changed. I say this as a bisexual submissive. I just don’t think it should).
“I’m just worried about people making claims on oppressed status when the status is something that’s being chosen.”
Okay, apparently you do view it as chosen. So, if it can be chosen, do you think that you could choose to like pain right now? Could you focus really really hard, and then finally start enjoying to be whipped? If you could, why do you think anyone would? Why would we choose to limit our pool of sexual partners and be part of a marginalized section of society?
Honestly, I can’t fathom how you came to this conclusion.
I can certainly see how BDSM is conditioned by patriarchy and outside cultural forces. Speaking from the gay male BDSM community, the submissive is often feminized. I just diagree that in the absence of patriarchy, BDSM would dissappear. You’d still have natural masochists. You’d still have endorphin junkies (see: piercing enthusiasts). You’d still have people who find meaning in submission and fulfillment in dominance. It just wouldn’t be as clogged with the detritus of female = submissive.
“But BDSM does tend to play into patriarchal ideas about sex in a lot of ways, alloying sex with power as it does”
See, this, exactly. Patriarchy conditions a certain kind of mixing of sex with power: namely one where the male is dominant and the female submissive, and more crucially, where the female is not expected to have a choice about how to have sex and with whom, and the woman’s desires are not expected to be taken into consideration.
I would also question that notion that everything that has to do with patriarchy is necessarily corrupted. Patriarchy tends to mix sex and power. Farming and reproduction also happen under patriarchy. These are not bad things. For my part, I’m content to say that the mixing of power and sex is not inherently problematic, because I’ve witnessed too many instances of sex and power being melded successfully to the mutual gratification of both participants. It’s the things that actually hurt people- that the submissive is not given a choice, and that the submissive’s desire is not given equal airtime- that I’m going to rail against.
“How in god’s name are you going to claim that society derides women for being sexually submissive?”
Equivocation. Ask how many submissive women in the BDSM scene are completely comfortable with being out of the closet about it. Not many of them will be. Society, including yourself, from your position of heterosexual vanilla priveledge, tends to look down upon what we do in the bedroom.
“by definition involves hurting people. “
BDSM only by definition involves hurting people if piercing, tatoos, and surgery by definition involves hurting people
Hurt/harm dichotomy, people. I hurt myself every time I get off my ass and start exercising. It hurts. I’m also not harmed in any way. I can say that the vast majority of BDSM practioners do not wish harm upon their partners or themselves.
“If there are lesbian or gay readers who want to discuss the comparison, I’m all ears, but I find the analogy weak and offensive.”
Hi, bisexual submissive here.
I never had a choice about either of my sexualities. I felt guilt about both of them for quite some time. I feel far more oppressed for my submissiveness than I do for my bisexuality. I feel that the analogy is apt to a point (see my post above).
“this mortification of the flesh, desire to endure pain for some greater good, and exultation in submission to a “master” sounds a lot more like fundie christianity”
Aye, I do think that Christianity and BDSM can have a lot in common. I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing.
“Abuse” and “oppression” are serious charges, and I’ll not have the terms watered down by people claiming they’re being abused because someone doesn’t approve of their choices”
24% of sadomasochists have lost a job because of their sexuality. 3% have lost a child. (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=162102). we feel the same shaming many homosexuals do. We fear the discovery of our sexuality, fear coming out to our family and friends.
February 10, 2009 at 8:27 PM
James: There is a whole network of titleholders — There was a formal contest. 5 judges. Scored on; speech, interview, fantasy performance. I was a local titleholder.
Womens’ International title websites;
http://www.imsl.org/
http://www.msworldleather.com/
History and many others here;
http://www.leatherarchives.org/
“Community leader” in this case, is self defined, and (I feel, accurately) represents the level of activity, influence, event production, networking and outreach, volunteering, committees, groups and boards, activism that I participated in/on. In other words, I was fully engaged with the lifestyle and this topic. I hope this answers your question?
February 10, 2009 at 8:41 PM
@Gorgias:
“Maybe you should join us in fighting the stigmatization of kinky people, to the point where it’s very difficult to get a rape charge to stick against someone who enjoys rough sex, instead of exacerbating the problem.”
THANK YOU. i would go further and advocate for the destigmatization of ALL consensual sexual preferences AND lifestyles – including sex work. that way, when a young woman in philly who happens to be a sex worker brings a charge of gang rape to court, a FEMALE judge won’t dismiss it as “theft of services.” true. fucking. story.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307245,00.html
it’s just too bad RAtM hasn’t written a song about this yet. not like ND would listen to it.
February 10, 2009 at 8:44 PM
@Gorgias
Simply put ? Amen.
Also, kudo’s to you. :)
February 10, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Delphyne,
You asked to not further discussion. Then this. Do you want further discussion or just the word? You have asked me to read your posts, not respond to them repeatedly, then state that I am trying to silence you? I’m not trying to silence anyone. I oppose silencing people. My blog and the fact that I have let anyone of any perspective share their views at any length including some very long vitriolic threads from radical feminists.
Which way to you want it? Do you want a response or for your post to be left alone.
Do you respect my right to speech or do you prefer that I silence my voice and opinions out of respect for your request? That you can’t have both ways.
February 10, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Gogias and desire – I’ve said on many occasions that I’m for decriminalization as far as sex work is concerned. And I’m damn well not OK with a legal system that makes it impossible for women who’ve been raped to get justice (see Deuce’s Law, likely the most controversial thing I’ve ever written). But I can fight against a fucked up legal system and against a culture that ENCOURAGES rape at the same time because they are RELATED. If you don’t see how, you’re being willfully blind.
February 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM
I was aware of the leather contest stuff, but that wasn’t really what I was interested in. (Congrats there, though.)
You did answer my question but I don’t consider you a leader of that community. Indeed I consider the concept of a “Community Leader” to be largely a media fiction (used by the press and networks as a matter of convenience despite its distorting influence) which has mostly served only to empower the opinionated and outspoken to a degree that they are not deserving of.
The most obvious example of this is in religious communities where frequently the most conservative elements become spokesman (yeah, it’s usually a man) for a group they want to represent but never will. I’m not saying that that’s what you are, I’ve really enjoyed your contributions to this thread, but it’s what that sort of “bloc” mindset often leads to. I’ll always find someone who asserts that others are their followers without asking the people in question first a tad presumptuous, I suppose.
I suppose in this instance it’s come in handy (since most other BDSM loving women on this thread has just been ignored, presumably due to being more than slightly ideologically inconvenient) but largely it’s counter-productive towards anything save self-aggrandizement & misrepresentation.
February 10, 2009 at 9:08 PM
>>my advice would be if you don’t like my posts or my style – don’t read them.>>
Delphyne you are absolutely correct. There is nothing productive for either of us in me reading them. Or responding. I agree and will take your advice. No malice intended in this statement.
To the moderator, thank you for allowing my posts to clear moderation. Your board provides a great forum for differing ideas to be expressed and my hope is that the fight against oppression is successful for all at some point in our live times or at least humanity.
peace
February 10, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Zeta – I don’t block comments that aren’t insulting. It’s my policy.
February 10, 2009 at 9:48 PM
ND, you have specifically blocked comments of mine that weren’t insulting. By the way, there are no insults in this post, will you therefore let it go, as per your policy?
Georgia…fucking amazingly said.
February 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Nic – You can comment here, but I’ll ask you to avoid addressing me and any other commenter who asks.
February 10, 2009 at 10:01 PM
I was making fun of your favorite band with the site name. I used to make fun of people who were overly angsty by referring to their “raging against” whatever, and the site name was a way to be a little tongue-in-cheek about things, to not take myself completely seriously. You are a fucking dork if you like Rage Against the Machine. Oh, and you’re also an asshole for thinking you get to decide who is a real feminist, which even I don’t do. So piss off.
….
Zeta – I don’t block comments that aren’t insulting. It’s my policy.
Nice. Cheers. I guess I’m a dork. Great way to engage in honest debate there :P
Rage is what got me off my ass and actually fighting for my ideals. Can’t say that about Clapton or Hendrix.
February 10, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Yeah, they suck too.
I’m not here to engage in debate. It’s my forum. You’re a guest.
February 10, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Who do you like?
February 10, 2009 at 10:08 PM
What, bands? Because I dislike three overrated bands/musicians? If you seriously want to know I’ll tell you, but I don’t see that it’s that bizarre that I don’t like those three.
February 10, 2009 at 10:22 PM
Well you also expressed some disdain for NIN as I recall (although it was more to do with his cultural impact along with The Crow, which I can kind of understand) and out of the four most people I know of will have a fondness for at least one of the four.
But yes, I am quite honestly interested in complete seriousness.
February 10, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Yeah, NIN sucks too, and I say that even though I happen to be friends with someone who was (embarrassingly) in that band for a short while. Here is a list that I’ll copy and paste from another location:
Drive Like Jehu, Hot Snakes, Pitchfork, Back off Cupids, Rocket from the Crypt, Sonic Youth, Dead Meadow, Iron Maiden, The Fall, The Duke Spirit, The Police, English Beat, Sleater-Kinney, Pere Ubu, Killing Joke, Oingo Boingo, Slint, The Cure, Number Girl, Echo and the Bunnymen, Oasis, Kool Keith, The Smiths (not Morrissey), Don Caballero, Speaking Canaries, Icarus Line, Dinosaur Jr., Killdozer, Les Savy Fav, Beehive and the Barracudas, Jesus Lizard, Burning Brides, At the Drive-In, !!!, Black Sabbath, Ink and Dagger, Slayer, Swervedriver, David Bowie, T. Rex, Roxy Music, Black Flag (as long as Henry Rollins isn’t on the mic), Minutemen, Circle Jerks, Descendents (basically all South Bay punk bands, but mostly for teenage nostalgia’s sake), Fugazi, Dead Kennedys, Fucking Champs, Tears for Fears, Devo (but not “Whip It”), The Church, My Bloody Valentine, and a bunch of others.
February 10, 2009 at 10:32 PM
ND: While it is your forum, and I am indeed a guest, you invited people here, and in general I’ve tried to be polite and respect that. I just find it telling that you castigate people for being rude then go on a tear yourself.
**shrugs** I’m pretty much done here anyhow, I don’t think I can add much more.
February 10, 2009 at 10:34 PM
I never dish it out first. desire gave me shit for punning a band’s name, essentially calling me a dork, and I merely set her straight about the meaning in my site’s moniker.
February 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Well ND, I must say you’ve gone entirely TOO FAR NOW!
You said NIN suck!
NOW, IT’S PERSONAL!
;)
hee hee.
(Can’t say I agree with the people snapping at you for making fun of a band you don’t like. FFS, my blog name is snarkily appropriated from Sandra Bartky dissing SM. Snark is not a bad thing, people.)
February 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Besides Oasis that’s a pretty much flawless list.
Sonic Youth, The Fall, The Duke Spirit, The Smiths (not Morrissey), At the Drive-In, & My Bloody Valentine we are especially in agreement over.
February 10, 2009 at 10:48 PM
I like Oasis for reasons only Americans can understand. They’re like caricatures of everything we think about England.
February 10, 2009 at 11:00 PM
“I never dish it out first”
You did tell the bulk of people likely to be opposed to you to kill themselves. Then you responded to the suicidal thoughts of one of our own with derision. If the tone of the posts in this thread has been more confrontational than any other, well, you’ve got the reason.
“I’m damn well not OK with a legal system that makes it impossible for women who’ve been raped to get justice (see Deuce’s Law, likely the most controversial thing I’ve ever written). But I can fight against a fucked up legal system and against a culture that ENCOURAGES rape at the same time because they are RELATED. If you don’t see how, you’re being willfully blind.”
Well, there are three things going on in a hypothetical rape case at kink.com that makes it unlikely to see justice. The first is the general prejudice against believing the claims of rape victims. The second is a prejudice against sex workers that because they have been compensated, they cannot be raped. The third is that people into kinky and rough sex must have enjoyed it somehow, and their exulting in the basest of desires makes their consent null in the first place.
You seem to be fighting against the first two, which is admirable. But you’re still contributing to an othering of kinky people that exacerbates the third problem..
I think you’ve a much harder case proving that what kinky people do in their bedrooms or even their porn encourages rape. For one thing, it’s not entirely proven that porn depicting something is more likely to make it happen- it’s just as likely that someone who feels guilty about such desires will use it as a release mechanism and it would thus make it unlikely for them to consummate their antisocial desires. Even further, you have yet to prove that kink porn is by its very nature nonconsensual. To the vast majority of people it is likely to look so, because it does not seem that anyone would consent to such things. But the average viewer of kink.com is one, I think, who is at least familiar with the physical BDSM community even if they aren’t active practitioners in it; and for us, the videos are more likely to evoke memories of purely consensual and awesome experiences we’ve had in our bedrooms. In other words, it occurs in a space where such activity is for the most part understood to be consensual as a backdrop.
My last post was fairly long, but there are a few points that I’d like to see addressed that I haven’t yet.
1.) Why we should care about a practice’s genesis when we have the experience available. To wit: if it is a positive experience and does not harm anyone, why do we care if it has its roots in patriarchy?
2.) Why we are correct in assuming a similarity between a rapist and a BDSM top when both get off on the subjective experience of their partner/victim, and this subjective experience varies in the case of a rape victim and a BDSM bottom.
3.) Your definition of sexual orientation, why BDSMers don’t fit in with that, and why you continue to believe that people choose to be kinky.
4.) Whether you buy into the difference between hurt and harm, hurt being a pain that may serve a higher good, as in the case with piercings, tatoos and medical procedures, with harm being something that by definition is undesirable.
February 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM
you know it really is too bad we’re predisposed to hate each other, because you might actually like my music.
February 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM
I never responded to anyone who expressed suicidal thoughts.
February 10, 2009 at 11:04 PM
Dude, how are tattoos and piercings going to serve a higher good?
February 10, 2009 at 11:06 PM
“I like Oasis for reasons only Americans can understand. They’re like caricatures of everything we think about England.”
I suppose that they serve pretty well for that role. If they have demonstrated that our working classes are no longer (indeed never were) chirpy cockneys then perhaps they’ve done some good…
February 10, 2009 at 11:07 PM
We aren’t predisposed to hate each other. That’s the Man doing the divide-and-conquer, and I’m not into the Man. I don’t hate anyone who’s commented here (though I’d probably pass up the opportunity to drink a beer with Nic).
February 10, 2009 at 11:14 PM
“Dude, how are tattoos and piercings going to serve a higher good?”
Okay, higher good may evoke some connotations that aren’t there, but the point is, the person choosing to get pierced or tattooed considers the improvement in looks more important than the temporary pain and difficulties of aftercare =)
Still waiting for a response to those four points.
February 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM
“Dude, how are tattoos and piercings going to serve a higher good?”
by increasing bodily mindfulness and personal aesthetic? just sayin’. not all of us have “man’s ruin” tattooed on our ass.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51pNWHuJHYL._AA280_.jpg, not sure who the hell would get that anywhere but it’s a big world)
February 10, 2009 at 11:28 PM
1 – Because we may be furthering other women’s oppression when we engage in certain acts (I’m thinking of porn when I mention this). Because patriarchy doesn’t disappear because we’ve learned to like parts of it.
2 – That question is worded weirdly. Please rephrase it.
3 – It’s they who’ve told me that it’s a choice. And those who have not are coming dangerously close to saying that submission is innate. That’s a seriously problematic claim.
4 – I don’t think a higher good is being served. It may be pleasurable for the individual, but where’s the higher good? I keep hearing about how brave people who practice BDSM are. I think it’s braver to try to imagine sex that isn’t mixed up with power.
February 10, 2009 at 11:52 PM
“I never responded to anyone who expressed suicidal thoughts.”
I was referring to the Wiseman thing.
“1 – Because we may be furthering other women’s oppression when we engage in certain acts (I’m thinking of porn when I mention this). Because patriarchy doesn’t disappear because we’ve learned to like parts of it.”
How does BDSM, even if it does come from the patriarchy, further women’s oppression when it is practiced in a situation where consent is paramount and mutual gratification and closer personal connection are the end goals?
This strikes me as claiming that engaging in sex legitimizes rape because, hey, it implies that women like that sort of thing! And might in fact encourage people to do it even when they are withholding consent!
“2 – That question is worded weirdly. Please rephrase it.”
Here, I’ll get the thing from earlier in the thread:
“Look, a BDSM top (avoiding the word sadist owing to cultural baggage) fundamentally gets off on the experience of his or her partner. I don’t think any of them could get off by whipping a plastic dummy: it’s clearly not the physical motions that excite them. So does a rapist’s. So the question is, what experience are they getting off on? As a bottom myself, though I have never been raped, I’m pretty damn sure my experiences differ considerably from those of a person being raped. After all, I consider them uniformly positive experiences, and integral to my sexual satisfaction as well as exploring my sense of self, whereas rape is uniformly a negative experience. If a BDSM top’s enjoyment depends upon the experience of the individual, and the experience of that individual differs in no small way from that of a person being raped, then they have nothing in common but appearances.”
“3 – It’s they who’ve told me that it’s a choice. And those who have not are coming dangerously close to saying that submission is innate. That’s a seriously problematic claim.”
I’m unaware of any people who consider their kinky desires a choice. We do call it a lifestyle, which is not the same as saying that it is a choice. Certainly, it is our choice to engage in the BDSM lifestyle, much as it is a choice for homosexuals to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. We can choose to ignore our sexuality and put ourselves in a relationship where we are not emotionally and physically fulfilled, just like homosexuals.
In any case, claiming orientation isn’t claiming anything innate. I fall down pretty hard on the “nurture” side of “nature vs. nurture” question on both homosexuality and kinkiness. That doesn’t make them any less orientations. In any case, I fail to see how submission is innate is any more a problematic statement than any other kinds of behavior (homosexuality, to name one) is innate. Hint: genes don’t work that way, guys.
“4 – I don’t think a higher good is being served. It may be pleasurable for the individual, but where’s the higher good? I keep hearing about how brave people who practice BDSM are. I think it’s braver to try to imagine sex that isn’t mixed up with power.”
Again, I seem to have confused with my use of “higher good.” My apologies. What I mean is that, just as many consider the physical pain of exercising to be worth the good things of health, and piercers and tattoers consider the pain worth undergoing for a more aesthetically pleasing body, so can BDSMers consider pain worthwhile. It’s not a very good analogy on that basis because pain is desired for itself in BDSM activity. But it does indicate that things that cause pain are not necessarily bad. We are willing to undergo all kinds of physical pain if the rewards for doing it are good enough.
The point is: there’s a difference between the psychologists’ death drive that seeks one’s own harm, and a masochist who enjoys the endorphin rush and intimacy of having pain inflicted on them. Just as there is a difference between the evil person who genuinely wishes to inflict harm on another, and the sadist who enjoys inflicting a bit of pain in the quest for mutual gratification.
February 10, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Dear L and Rachel,
I am a woman, not a man. Now that I’ve cleared that up, I’m going to repeat my original message, and this time I want you to read it careful, now that you know I’m not of the male sex:
What I think is that radical feminists are placing far, far too much emphasis on sexuality, to a completely obsessive and unhealthy degree. If the subject is not prostitution, then it’s pornography, and if it’s not pornography, then it’s BDSM. It leads me to think that you don’t care about oppression of women in it’s other forms, such as economic and social oppression.
In other words, a woman can slave away in an Indonesian factory making Nike shoes for a dollar a day, but if she starts spreading her legs for ten times as much, then she’s “horribly oppressed by the patriarchy”. Do you really and honestly think I can’t see through this nonsense? It may be patriarchal, according to you, to exchange sex for cash, but the REAL patriarchy, according to ME, is having to slave away in the factory. Why? Because the dollar-a-day factory job is what causes the temptation and desire to earn ten times as much selling sex. So the REAL oppression starts in the factory, and not the other way around.
As a feminists, you should be focused on women’s lack of education, health care, and lack of job and career opportunities worldwide. And you should also recognize and be concerned about the oppression of women that is NOT inherently sexual in nature, such as the plight of widows in India, and the gender apartheid practiced in parts of the Middle East. I can guarantee you that Afghan women for the most part have other things to worry about besides BDSM or pornography. They worry about where their next meal is coming from.
———-
I would like to add to this by saying to Rachel that women comprise the vast majority of sweatshop labor, not men. The people who work in Nike sweatshops are almost exclusively young women. And there are other types of non-sexual jobs that mostly women do, such as nurses, teachers, and nannies, and bank tellers. And judging from the sarcastic and spiteful response that you gave to me when I mention women being oppressed in non-sexual situations, I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t actually care about these women, not even the Afghan women who worry about having enough to eat.
February 11, 2009 at 12:19 AM
And those who have not are coming dangerously close to saying that submission is innate.
“Innate” and “Mutable” are too entirely distinct things. Why should arguing that something is not possessing the latter lead to arguing that it is the former?
February 11, 2009 at 12:19 AM
I meant TWO distinct things, obviously. >.>
February 11, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Sorry for the incorrect assumption about your gender/sex, Forlock. Still, the claim that feminists “should” focus on other “more important” issues is made all too frequently, and this claim is ultimately a red herring meant to throw conversation off-track. It’s a common troll tactic (and trolls on feminist blogs are often male, hence the assumption, for which I apologize again) and frankly boring to deal with. There are plenty of feminists — online and off — who work to liberate women from economic, imperialist, colonialist, and racist oppression such as what you’ve described. That just happens not to be the topic at hand here.
February 11, 2009 at 1:42 AM
>>>Here is a list that I’ll copy and paste from another location:
Drive Like Jehu, Hot Snakes, Pitchfork, Back off Cupids, Rocket from the Crypt, Sonic Youth, Dead Meadow, Iron Maiden, The Fall, The Duke Spirit, The Police, English Beat, Sleater-Kinney, Pere Ubu, Killing Joke, Oingo Boingo, Slint, The Cure, Number Girl, Echo and the Bunnymen, Oasis, Kool Keith, The Smiths (not Morrissey), Don Caballero, Speaking Canaries, Icarus Line, Dinosaur Jr., Killdozer, Les Savy Fav, Beehive and the Barracudas, Jesus Lizard, Burning Brides, At the Drive-In, !!!, Black Sabbath, Ink and Dagger, Slayer, Swervedriver, David Bowie, T. Rex, Roxy Music, Black Flag (as long as Henry Rollins isn’t on the mic), Minutemen, Circle Jerks, Descendents (basically all South Bay punk bands, but mostly for teenage nostalgia’s sake), Fugazi, Dead Kennedys, Fucking Champs, Tears for Fears, Devo (but not “Whip It”), The Church, My Bloody Valentine, and a bunch of others.>>>
Nine Deuce, there is absolutely no way on EARTH that you can listen and love music like this and be a radical feminist at the same time. Absolutely NONE. Punk, New Wave, and Metal are politically incorrect forms of music, both in lyrics and instrumentation.
I’ve had my suspicions about you as a fake radfem, but now those suspicions are confirmed. You talk the talk pretty well, you use language like “rape rooms” and all that crap, but you’re not one of them. Not with that kind of musical profile.
I can’t tell you what to do with your life, but I hope that one day you’re going to stop pulling everyone’s leg and start showing who you really are.
February 11, 2009 at 1:43 AM
Har har, Forlock.
February 11, 2009 at 2:09 AM
There are plenty of feminists — online and off — who work to liberate women from economic, imperialist, colonialist, and racist oppression such as what you’ve described. That just happens not to be the topic at hand here.
And barely ever is, was (I suspect) Forlock’s point.
February 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM
It’s still not a valid critique, James.
February 11, 2009 at 2:41 AM
“I keep hearing about how brave people who practice BDSM are. I think it’s braver to try to imagine sex that isn’t mixed up with power.”
Kinky people are perfectly capable of imagining sex that doesn’t involve power play (whether of the unconscious, or the explicit and negotiated variety) – hell, from personal experience, we’re perfectly capable of having sex that doesn’t involve kink, or is as devoid of power as any sex can be in repressed, patriarchal societies with severe religion hangovers. We (well, I, at least) simply don’t see the sex that is consciously and deliberately free from power as politically or morally superior to the sex that is consciously involving or evoking power dynamics.
February 11, 2009 at 3:18 AM
3 bands. Rusted Root, great stuff opposing US aggression in Latin America, opposition to war, and legalizing marijuana. No, I don’t smoke anything including weed. Never have. But the huge waste that comes because of criminalizing marijuana. I have to say I agree with Rusted Root.
Amanda Marshall. She is this awesome Canadian female singer that is bi racial although you would never know, a point of which much of her songs are about. Many songs about racial tolerance. And a brilliant song named Birmingham about leaving an abusive husband.
And Sheryl Crow. Yes Sheryl Crow. Her newest album has some really great socially aware music. Out of Our Heads, a song about peace, the media’s fanning hatred to get the juicy shots from war. Another song I forget the name, about New Orleans after Katrina. Back in 96, Redemption Day has a great message.
February 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM
“I’ve come to the conclusion that you don’t actually care about these women, not even the Afghan women who worry about having enough to eat.”
Weeelllll…attitudes like that are generally (not neccesarily in this case) an “us and them thing”. The plight of people in your own country often seems more important than that of foreigners.
Living in the first world means lots of luxury items that people in the third world were oppressed to make. You could see porn as a luxury item, but English speakers get oppressed by the porn industry.
February 11, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Nine Deuce – Are you actually looking for a model’s voice? I have been shooting for Kink on and off since 2007 and would be happy to discuss my experiences and motivations with you.
February 11, 2009 at 5:24 PM
“Kinky people are perfectly capable of imagining sex that doesn’t involve power play (whether of the unconscious, or the explicit and negotiated variety) – hell, from personal experience, we’re perfectly capable of having sex that doesn’t involve kink, or is as devoid of power as any sex can be in repressed, patriarchal societies with severe religion hangovers.”
Yes, exactly. I’ve not only imagined it, I’ve had it. I still like BDSM.
Maybe I’m just not “imagining” hard enough?
“You didn’t clap loudly enough, children. Tinkerbell’s dead.”
February 11, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Calico – Yes, I am.
Gorgias – Hate happiness? Way to poison the well.
February 11, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Buggle, can you explain something to me here:
You’ve said that because we’ve come here defending BDSM, we must have shown up because we “love the abuse” and want “radical feminists” to humiliate us.
Isn’t “women love abuse” Freudian bullshit? Isn’t it anti-feminist?
Or did I miss some memo somewhere?
And on that note, couldn’t I turn around and say “radical feminists” have a bizarre fixation with BDSM, given that they keep bringing it up?
I hadn’t posted anything on this topic for a month. Note that I didn’t even show up until other people told me ND posted Part 4 of — watch this now! — a whole SERIES OF POSTS on us and why we’re uncool.
February 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Calico – BTW, it’s totally up to you how you’d prefer to discuss. I know writing in a public forum kind of alters the dynamic of a discussion (especially when it’s something contentious), so if you want to e-mail me that’s also cool. But I’m also fine doing it here.
February 11, 2009 at 8:22 PM
I won’t defend a whole website, a lifestyle or even my own choices.
But they are mine to make and I enjoy them thoroughly. You don’t have to enjoy them, you don’t even have to understand them. But just because you do not understand them does not mean you should try to tear them down.
You can and should make up your mind about me as to whether you think I’m aware, confident, secure, happy, fulfilled. I’ve already decided for myself.
February 12, 2009 at 5:35 AM
“There are plenty of feminists — online and off — who work to liberate women from economic, imperialist, colonialist, and racist oppression such as what you’ve described. That just happens not to be the topic at hand here.”
>>>And barely ever is, was (I suspect) Forlock’s point.>>>
Yes, James, that’s exactly my point. All I’m seeing when I come to second-wave feminist blogs is prostitution this and porn that and BDSM over there. To be fair, I haven’t been to all of them.
Yes, there are women forced into sex work against their will, but even in those cases (where the women are tricked or forced), poverty and disenfranchisement are the precursors. Second-wave/radical feminism unfortunately goes to absurd lengths to deny this fact. It’s much easier for them to focus on the sex itself, because then they don’t have to deal the much greater task of eliminating the poverty and lack of agency. And that’s the REAL patriarchy that needs to be eliminated, right there.
February 12, 2009 at 9:26 AM
True. But you can say that about a lot of things. I honestly don’t see what makes BDSM so special.
I mean, I’ve been told I ought to pretty much kill myself (speaking of suicide!) because I wasn’t interested in getting married as a teenager and having strictly missionary sex for the rest of my life while bearing as many babies as possible.
Didn’t mean that I struck missionary off the menu (I think it’s kind of sweet!). Or the possibility of marriage and even giving birth – one of these days.
Anything can be twisted and appropriated. That doesn’t mean that just anything can, or should, be given up or derided.
February 12, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I just kind of stopped reading the trash about halfway through the thread and gave up on BDSM. I take back everything I said about wanting to understand people.
If someone can honestly sit there and rationalize how fetishizing non-consensual violent sex that follows the dominant patriarchal norms and is entirely rooted in them is a valid “identity” like homosexuality and race and gender, I’m going to assume the right to assume that they’re criminally intellectually challenged with a persecution complex the size of the Sun.
Let’s put it this way: I can look up any “mainstream” pornography and walk into any “gift store” like Spencers and find enough references to leather, whips, and chains and lovely female submission to male violence to make me want to move to the Moon. I can’t turn on a single freaking cable channel and have my sexuality be shown as anything but a punchline or a thing women do to turn men on.
And since now the thread has turned towards the defense of absolutely horrid bands that offend my musical sensibilities, I leave this post.
February 12, 2009 at 11:47 AM
[posting this here because the thread at sm-feminist has died]
N-D, others have already said similar things but what you said hit a nerve.
My partner is a Dom male who owns a fairly large collection of Kink.com pornography. He suffers from depression, I live in fear that the disease that both he and I suffer from will take him from me. So don’t you fucking dare say we are on the same side, you want the most important person in my life to die of a disease that they have suffered from for most of there life, a disease which makes their life hell. Why, because his entertainment doesn’t fit your politics?
DON’T YOU DARE CLAIM YOU CARE FOR ME.
WE ARE NOT ON THE SAME SIDE
Don’t fucking bother.
February 12, 2009 at 6:15 PM
Hello all,
I am attempting not to be infuriated at this brilliant display of ignorance.
I am a 23-year-old bondage model, who does bondage and sadomasochistic clips for a few different websites. I’ve also been an active player in the BDSM community for a few years now. I feel that all you people who are condemning this stuff have probably never met a true BDSM player.
I am a normal, intelligent, grad student, who grew up with wonderful parents. I was raised as a strong, independent young woman. And you know what? I love being restrained. I love being tied up and spanked or whipped by a partner who I connect with and takes me to my own personal pain limits, and no further. The BDSM community is the most accepting and loving community I have ever encountered. The energy involved in a deep power exchange between two people can be one of the most enlightening, spiritual, and powerful experiences I believe a human being can have. When I engage in sadomasochistic acts, there is always consensuality. Even in “play rape.” If anything goes too far, you simply use a safeword. I’ve used one three times in my life.
I am a bondage model because it turns me on. I don’t do it for the money – never did. It’s fun. My photographer is my friend, and we have a great time when we do our shoots. I do a good job of looking “terrified,” because I am performing. Really, I have a great time being tied up, sometimes flogged or spanked, and it’s a cathartic experience.
The point is, everything is in control, and when you get down to it, in BDSM play, it is always the submissive/masochist who is ultimately in control. They decide how much they can take. People have been using pain and endorphins as a means of transcendence for thousands of years.
Oh, ever heard of Third Wave Feminism? Look it up sometime. Thanks!
-Jessica
February 12, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Yeah, I have heard of third wave feminism, and I think it’s where everything went wrong. But thanks for the condescension.
February 12, 2009 at 6:42 PM
I’ve heard of Third Wave Feminism. It reminded me why I am a Second Wave Feminist.
February 12, 2009 at 6:44 PM
“Oh, ever heard of Third Wave Feminism? Look it up sometime. Thanks!”
Jessica,
As on your side as I am, that really doesn’t help matters any. Most of the people here are people who are dismayed by “third wave” feminism and think it’s a bastardization of the things they believe in. While I don’t agree with them, it’s better to ask rather than assume your opponent in a debate is willfully ignorant.
February 12, 2009 at 6:45 PM
And Cheshire, what makes you think the thread died? Or do you just mean ND isn’t over there any more?
February 12, 2009 at 11:38 PM
There haven’t been any new comments in the last couple of days, have there, but yes I did want a response from N-D
February 13, 2009 at 12:42 AM
What are the reasons that you think Third Wave feminism came into existence?
February 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM
“What are the reasons that you think Third Wave feminism came into existence?”
The big one was women of color feeling unrepresented by Second Wave theory that failed to take intersectionality into account.
(Personally, I really hate how that gets ignored in so many of the “wave” discussions, and the distinction gets distilled into “white women having the sex wars.” I think that really ignores the important work of many feminists of color/womanists.)
February 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM
It looks like this thread died down before I got to it, but if Deuce were to ever respond here again, my question would be “What do you propose those of us who do wank off to torturing women (and other people) do about it?” Besides kill ourselves. Being that we are what we are, and we cannot change that (believe me, I’ve tried. For a decade), are we just supposed to stop having orgasms and sexually fulfilling relationships? How would that undermine the patriarchy?
I’ve written a more in depth post about patriarchy and kink, revolving around your comments on the subject from several sources, if you’re interested in more discussion.
February 13, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Hi. I’ll take your challenge, since it’s shooting fish in a barrel.
I just spent two days looking at Kink.com. I looked at the pictures from each site, and watched a couple of the movies. While I like people who have an imagination, I think you have too much of one for your own good.
Let’s take each of your accusations, point by point.
*I don’t make the claim that what goes on on their sites is representative of what goes on in the typical real-life BDSM relationship (I mean, fuck, how many people can afford to buy all that shit?)*
What you are saying here is that you think SM equipment has to be expensive. Implied is that rich weirdoes do it. I’ve been doing some form of BDSM since 1976. At first when I did it with other people I was using simple riding crops (easily available at tack shops for about 4.95 in the old days) and wooden spoons (from the supermarket), as well as my dad’s old neckties (priceless in more ways than one) when I was alone- I was into self-bondage for years. I also used fruit and veggies from my local supermarket. To this day I don’t own tons of leather, latex or large metal devices. Most of my ‘toy-chest’ is made up of re-purposed everyday objects from tack shops, maritime stores, housewares stores, and places like Home Depot. This is pretty typical, and when I watched Kink.com, I saw people using similar items that had been painted black or had some chains added. The nipple clamps that kept appearing, for instance, are Japanese clover clamps, and are used by sailmakers and sewers here in the US. They can be bought for less than 20 bucks. The Hitachi Magic Wand is a popular vibrator among a lot of women- you can get ones like it at Walmart and then wrap it in black Saran Wrap to make it look scary, as well as keep it clean. As for the rigging- I suggest you speak to anyone who does rock-climbing or sailing. The metal stuff is typically something people get made; it’s expensive, but so are cars, Apple computers and wedding rings. People usually save up for them if they’re into that. Most people aren’t.
*but send me a story about human trafficking, about the abuse that women in war zones suffer, about the rampant torture of children by rape tourists in Southeast Asia, or about a submissive woman’s “journey” (brainwashing) and I’m likely to have to go lie down and think about moving to Mars for a few hours.*
I used to teach high school English. One of the topics English teachers cover is speechmaking and persuasion techniques. You used a perfect example of a propoganda technique called ‘kitchen-sinking’, in which you put the idea you are attacking (submissive women making choices you don’t like) in with unrelated and indefensible ideas (the abuse of children). Adult women are not children. Adult women are, well, adults. Many adults make choices that I as an individual might find completely repulsive- like calling for censorship of something they don’t have to look at, or voting Republican. However, as a feminist (card carrying since 1975) and a humanist, I believe humans, including women, have the right to make stupid, wrong and even bad choices. In some cases, what I see as bad or stupid or wrong at first might turn out to be right – for me or for someone else, depending on circumstances and the actual facts of the case.
By the way, all learning is a form of ‘brainwashing’. The inculcation of a firm belief regardless of solid proofs involves re-ordering the mind and re-aligning its thoughts. For instance, I used to be a Catholic, and I really believed in the Holy Trinity and transubstantiation. Now I’m a Zen Buddhist and I don’t anymore- but it took a lot of reading and self-rewiring to get to that point. You have no solid proof that all women are brainwashed into doing SM- you just want to believe it is so, and would believe it even if you sat down with twenty women who said otherwise and even invited you into their lives. That means you have been brainwashed yourself.
*There’s footage and photoes of naked women locked in cages too small for rabbits, of broken skin and blood, of women being waterboarded and subjected to other near-drowning tortures, of naked women being humiliated and tortured in public. Machines, metal, wood, electrodes, hooks, needles, hoods, and every other possible thing some sick motherfucker could come up with to use to torture a woman are in evidence on one or more of Kink.com’s sites. *
Now, this is a fun one. There are no ‘cages too small for rabbits’. Rabbits are about 12-24″ long when full grown. A cage that is large enough for a human to enter of his or own will (as opposed to having to be dismembered, crushed, and put through a blender first) is much larger than that. There are no pictures of broken skin and blood on Kink.com. Bruises, yes. Blood and broken skin? Show me one. I looked at every photo available on the site.
Are there women being waterboarded and being put under near-drowning conditions? Yes. But I have bad news for you. None of them are being forced into it. Take a look at any of the movies. Sick as it is to you, some of us like stuff like that. And on Kink.com, all ‘drowning’ is done with women as dominants. I’ve done similar things to men who wanted to play with me again and again. There are also men on the site (see ‘Men in Pain’, for example) who like being pushed to the edge. Humans are funny creatures- they often participate in and seek out activities that will cause them distress and would definitely, under other circumstances, be considered torture- like sticking themselves with needles or being nailed to crosses as part of religious rituals, being beaten as part of fraternity hazings, or participating in sports activities (rock-climbing, football, field hockey, fencing) that have actually led to the deaths of others. If it’s not to your taste, keep away.
Some people like being ‘humiliated’ in public. There are whole shows on tv about humiliation- from Jerry Springer to Let’s Make a Deal. People go on shows like Cheaters and sign releases, knowing that they will be seen. At the pinnacle are shows like Survivor. Again, it doesn’t have to be your taste, and the models are never shown being ‘humiliated’ in front of children or non-consenting adults.
I could go on (and on, and on). But I won’t. Does everything on Kink.com make my nipples pop? No. Some of it makes me want to puke- most of it’s the German stuff, because I find it very cold and unfeeling. I’m not into total depersonalization, either as a top or as a bottom. I’m more into service and discipline, which is like saying that while I like sports, curling leaves me cold while baseball excites me. But I also know that watching service videos are as boring as heck to people who aren’t into that- it’s like watching chess if you don’t know how to play or do so casually.
Much of SM can’t be ‘seen’ by the naked eye anyway. It’s impossible to depict subspace (which is essentially a trance state exactly like the kind people like myself have gone into during a long Mass or meditation session) with a camera. So to some extent, you are like a person reviewing a sporting match without understanding any of the rules, finer points. finesses, and so on. However, I would be more than happy to allow you to see real, personal BDSM (I’m not offering to do it to you- I find self-righteousness to be a sexual buzz-kill). I live in Northern NJ, and I also know some people who work at Kink.com (I was happily surprised to find out a friend of mine works there when looking through the photos and films), so if you are on or near either coast, I can arrange for you and a group of friends to see this stuff up close and talk to actual dominant and submissive women and men (I noticed you have not at all acknowledged dominant heterosexual women, or gays and lesbians of either the top or bottom persuasion- does it not fit with your brainwashing?). You can even bring a lawyer or a police officer if you’d like. And even better, you can pick the day you want to meet me, even at the last minute. I’m willing to offer this because I received my PhD in cultural anthropology after studying the BDSM community in New York City, and I think you are severely misinformed. Please let me know how to contact you in private and I will do so.
February 13, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Jessica-
While I have never been a bondage model or a third wave feminist (I’m too old for that), I celebrate you. I actually put out a magazine for people of color in SM for a bit, in part because of my feminism, and my desire to educate people about the diverse sexuality of people of color, particularly of women. I happen to be African-American. I also happen to like bondage (both giving and getting) and discipline. For the record, I have never allowed any of my partners (most of whom have been white) to call me a slave. I’ve also not had sex in public or done anything that would in my mind cast shame on my ancestors. This is another reason why the ‘brainwashing’ canard distresses me. I have been very mindful and self-questioning about my own behavior and have always had non-SM-involved friends as sounding boards. Doing SM has allowed me to tackle many of my feelings regarding racism and sexism, and to finally have the freedom that many white people often take for granted- the right to make choices not based on the color of my skin, my ethnic background, my sex or my genitals, but on my own mind and heart. While other life choices have contributed to this feel of freedom, do SM has certainly helped the process. It has also helped me to understand that we have the right to choose what kinds of sex we want within the parameters of safety, sanity and consensuality, and we don’t have to please others while doing so. Nor are we under any obligations to please others, save for those we wish to please. I have had male friends I wished to please so much that I beat them until they bled- and I got pleasure from it too. I’ve also had female friends I wanted to please so much that I’ve made them call me daddy while ‘forcing’ them to suck my dildo (after they’d told me how much they wanted to do so). And there have been men and women to whom I have submitted my will out of love, friendship, and admiration- but most of that involved being a student (;)). Still, since I know that others have been emotionally harmed by the rude words of others, I’m saying something here, even though I know it will fall on deaf ears for most readers.
February 13, 2009 at 6:02 PM
My e-mail address is off to the side.
Rabbits may be small, but anyone who’s not a terrible person would give one a cage bigger than those they use on Kink.com.
I’m busy, so this’ll have to wait.
February 13, 2009 at 6:44 PM
So we’re back to ‘it’s okay to torture people as long as they consent’. Riiiiight. Call me crazy, but I thought that torturing people was always wrong. I thought that deliberately inflicting harm on a person who is not threatening your life was wrong.
Why would someone want to torture others?
How can they justify this?
They can’t.
February 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM
You said it’s ‘torture’. any things look like torture, but aren’t. It is actually impossible to torture people with their consent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture
The legal definition of torture is clear. Putting clothespins on a woman’s breasts and removing them quickly while she has an orgasm is not torture. It’s sex, just not in a way you like. Using a cattle prod on someone who is saying ‘nonono’, but who asks to do it again is also not torture- especially since in SM, what you don’t see is that cattle prods have their power stepped down. A fully high powered cattle prod might actually kill a person outright or put him or her in cardiac arrest. It will do a lot more that make a person cry a bit. http://www.downonmyknees.com/archives/instruments/cattle_prods_and_sm.php
Again- point out the exact videos in which torture happened. Not still photos- I can take a still from a 1930s movie and say it shows torture, since I’m not offering context.
But to humor you a bit, let’s take language into account. In SM, words like torture, hurt, slave, master, humiliation, degradation and so on are all used, but they mean slightly different things to players than they do to outsiders. SMers are against actual, real life torture- otherwise, Kink.com would close up shop in San Francisco and take up residence in Kuwait or Pakistan, both of which are countries where torture is legal and the governments would probably enjoy hiring people who are skilled at it. SMers actually have classes on how to do what they do without inflicting harm. But we know that in video games, perfectly nice people commit acts such as theft, murder, torture, and so on- yet it’s not the same as the real thing. The masters, mistresses and slaves in SM have no legal valence- they don’t actually own people or are owned by them, and they know this. I can call myself a queen, and find people who are willing to be my court- but that doesn’t mean the US government will recognize it. Outside of video games, people in sports often talk about hurting the opposition or humiliating them or making them feel pain. However, we know that this is hyperbole. The Pittsburgh Steelers don’t actually get to cut off the genitals of the losing team- which has been known to happen in real-life torture.
February 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM
One last thing. Real-life torturers do not claim to stop hurting people just because they cry. They do not ask victims if it’s ok for them to go on with the torment. they do not write copious websites on how to avoid nerve damage or heart failure, or permanent emotional distress. SM people do. On Kink.com. it’s made clear from reading the guidelines and watching any of their self-produced movies that they do not act as torturers.
Years ago, a teacher of mine told me that before he’d become an anthropologist he’d disliked lots of people, but this was out of prejudice. After going to school and learning about various cultures, he found that he still disliked some of these same people- but now he knew why, and he knew why he thought they were wrong. I don’t have a problem with people disliking SM play. I simply object to people making up ridiculous claims about rabbit cages, blood and other nonsense, when these can be disproven in less than five minutes. Base your dislike on actual facts, not on hearsay or your own perverted fantasies, which is what you are doing now.
February 13, 2009 at 7:52 PM
“Why would someone want to torture others?”
Wiring laurelin! It’s all wiring!
It’s new catch-phrase for everything orgasmic.
February 13, 2009 at 8:00 PM
If it’s not torture (who am I to argue with you and Wikipedia? *rolls eyes*) Then why do BDSMers like to call it torture?
Is that not an insult to those who are tortured? Eroticising their agony? Clearly doms (or whatever you’re calling them these days) think torture is sexy, or they wouldn’t use the word. They seem to want to believe it’s torture, after all.
Doing harm to another person is still doing harm.
Again, we focus on the person who ‘consents’. What of the person doing the harm?
Why is he let off the hook?
February 13, 2009 at 8:01 PM
It looks like this thread died down before I got to it, but if Deuce were to ever respond here again, my question would be “What do you propose those of us who do wank off to torturing women (and other people) do about it?”
I’ve found this site heavy on the rage, light on the suggestions. At least RATM told us to “Let the guilty hang…”
So we’re back to ‘it’s okay to torture people as long as they consent’. Riiiiight. Call me crazy, but I thought that torturing people was always wrong.
As far as I’m concerned it’s only a stimulation of torture is somebody wants it.
I thought that deliberately inflicting harm on a person who is not threatening your life was wrong.
How about leaving your partner unsatisfied? Wasn’t that being a bad thing a substantial plank of the Second Wave?
Why would someone want to torture others?
How can they justify this?
They can’t.
Now I’m not a natural defender of sadism. Indeed, as I’ve said before, I’m a Utilitarian. Unfortunately though it seems that sadism is an ineradicable element of humanity. Accordingly the best we can hope for is for sadists to be matched with masochists. If they don’t want to hurt somebody who enjoys it then they can either restrain themselves or be removed from the mainstream of society.
In a way though, those who are happy with masochists being in a S&M relationship is the perfect solution and constitutes the squaring of the circle.
February 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM
@Laurelin -
“I thought that deliberately inflicting harm on a person who is not threatening your life was wrong.”
I think your phrasing brings up a crucial point. There is a longstanding distinction in much of the kinky community between ‘hurt’ and ‘harm.’ Pain, or ‘hurt’ is often desirable (not by everybody who is kinky, I might add). ‘Harm’ is typically used as a negative, such as hurting someone in the wrong way or hurting someone against their will can harm them, as in causing lasting emotional or physical damage. This distinction in terminology is not used by everyone, but it is fairly prevalent. There is also a common distinction between ‘good pain’ and ‘bad pain,’ or the pain a person wants to feel and the pain they don’t.
I inflict pain on partners, and sometimes ask them to inflict pain on me. They like it, I like it. If it becomes bad pain, they say a safeword, and I stop. If it becomes too much to handle, I say a safeword, and they stop. People have been hurt, and are happy for it, but no one has been harmed.
“Why would someone want to torture others?
How can they justify this?”
By the satisfaction and fulfillment of their partner(s) and themselves.
February 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
“By the satisfaction and fulfillment of their partner(s) and themselves.”
Pleasure is for greedy hedonists! It’s outmoded, ya know. We have THEORY now.
February 13, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Michele – You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter if individual women think BDSM rules or participate gladly in filming shit like that on Kink.com (and your other points were so tertiary as to warrant no response). What matters is that the existence of this kind of shit is BAD FOR ALL WOMEN.
February 14, 2009 at 1:15 AM
@Nine Deuce –
“You don’t get it. It doesn’t matter if individual women think BDSM rules or participate gladly in filming shit like that on Kink.com[.]”
Then again, I ask, what is it you propose that kinky people do about your views on our sexuality? Should we all swear abstinence, or recite “I shall have gentle-mainstream-normative-sex” ten times every time we fantasize about tying someone up, or being tied up, or whipping someone, or being whipped? What is your proposed alternative? Should we all resolve to be sexually unfulfilled? How would this undermine the patriarchy? How would it help all women for a comparatively small sexual minority to stop having orgasms?
We cannot stop existing, and neither can our sexualities. You stated in a comment at SM Feminist that your suggestion of suicide was intentionally over-the-top, so I’d appreciate a response other than that.
February 14, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I’m not telling you to do anything, you see. Do whatever you want. All I’m saying is that I’ve got issues with BDSM and that I think it’s at odds with feminism.
February 14, 2009 at 1:44 AM
@Nine Deuce – I’m still quite curious to know what you think should be done to resolve your issues with BDSM and how you believe it is at odds with feminism. Your vehemence on the subject seems to suggest you believe something should be done about it.
I’m also interested in hearing your views of other dominants besides men, such as dominant women, trans-people, intersex people, and others. You’ve suggested at SM Feminist that you believe a F/m dynamic is different than M/f, and I was hoping you could elaborate on that point.
February 14, 2009 at 1:47 AM
Yes, I intend to. As of now life requires that I pay attention to it.
February 14, 2009 at 3:02 AM
Understandable.
February 14, 2009 at 5:19 AM
““Why would someone want to torture others?”
Wiring laurelin! It’s all wiring!
It’s new catch-phrase for everything orgasmic.”
Oh I get it. I have seen the light!
Oh but I have to confess something.
I’m naturally wired to question BDSM and inflicting pain on people in the name of orgasm.
I just can’t help it, it’s the way I am. Stop oppressing me!
So I guess I won’t be shutting up anytime soon, eh?
It’s interesting how we have to use phrases like ‘wiring’ to describe something that is supposedly ‘natural’.
And also that ‘natural’ is used as a synonym for ‘acceptable’.
All dominant political groups have claimed that the gendered set-up they impose on others is ‘natural’ and cannot be changed.
February 14, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I’ll stop with the naive questions now, but I can’t help but wonder – what would a kinky person do if s/he were to fall in love with someone non-kinky, “vanilla”, and “boring”? I’ve always thought people are surprisingly adaptable, and to tie your identity up (har, har) with a particular form of sexual expression is – or so it seems to me – to miss a whole gamut of things people have to offer in love relationships, and other ways in which people can be compatible.
(Which, yes, goes both ways. But I for one am not opposed to a variety of sexual expression; I just have an ideological problem with the eroticization of violence in general. I feel that people attach far too much importance to their “vanilla” sex lives, too: from reading certain women’s magazines, you’d think regular orgasms and shopping are everything there is to life. To be honest, I personally can’t think of any form of sexual expression – “vanilla”, hardcore or anything in between – that would be entirely fulfilling to me. But I don’t feel any less fulfilled as a human being for it.)
Imagine a male dom and a rad fem falling in love with each other. I’d like to see that rom-com.
February 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM
“Imagine a male dom and a rad fem falling in love with each other.”
Best. Romantic Comedy. EVER.
February 14, 2009 at 3:16 PM
“I’ll stop with the naive questions now, but I can’t help but wonder – what would a kinky person do if s/he were to fall in love with someone non-kinky, “vanilla”, and “boring”?”
Personally, I don’t think such a relationship would work. Love is one thing a relationship needs; sexual compatibility is another. I’ve seen sexual incompatibilities really mess up relationships between people I know love one another deeply, and it’s heartbreaking to watch. I would probably deem it better to love such a person in a non-sexual way.
If I did fall in love with such a person and feel sure that a relationship would work, I would probably do what a lot of kinky people in that situation do, providing my partner was OK with it: some form of polyamory or play outside the relationship.
February 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Other, more articulate voices, have already said most of what I wanted to. I would like to point how how incredibly amusing I find the gay posters who are absolutely aghast that “Those People” could dare to compare themselves with good, wholesome LGBT folk. It’s somewhat reminiscent of how certain black homophobes get about them…
February 14, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I am NOT a fan of kink.com and I am NOT defending it. However, having said that, there are other points to consider in discussing this subject matter, as you’ve dragged in some auxilliary topics;
1) One website is not the sole spokesperson for an entire demographic of society.
2) Failure to include a discussion of the consensuality aspect of BDSM is a failure in fully and completely discussing the subject at hand.
3) It is amusing to think that, someone who champions the rights of women to choose to not participate in these activities doesn’t comprehend that the flip side of that coin consensuality coin is that, if women have a right to choose NOT to participate, they also have a right to choose TO participate, as do men. (FYI? There are FAR more male submissives and female dominants out there, than female submissives and male dominants.)
4) Regardless of what anyone thinks, kink IS a valid form of expressing one’s sexuality. Just as those who are straight seek out straights, gays/lesbians express themselves with a same sex partner, those who are kinky seek out others who are kinky, those who are either dominant or submissive seek out a corresponding mate. Again, it’s all about consensuality, NOT force.
4) Typically, when someone condemns something based on fear, “feelings”, and hysteria, with regards to human sexuality, they are superimposing THEIR morality and THEIR beliefs onto others, as opposed to granting them that same freedom to choose, that they are screaming about being taken away.
5) It will be interesting to see if any responses based on logic and ratioal thinking are posted in response to this, and how many responses end up being attacks and more screaming. :-)
February 14, 2009 at 5:55 PM
“Imagine a male dom and a rad fem falling in love with each other. I’d like to see that rom-com.”
THIS.
February 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM
The thing is, most of what you see on kink.com and other sites is the EXCEPTION, not the real-life norm.
Most real-life practitioners of BDSM adhere to SSC – Safe, Sane, Consensual.
What CONSENTING ADULTS do in the privacy of their own bedroom, frankly, is no one’s business but theirs.
Most of your readers who are horrified by what they see on kink.com probably know, work with, or are related to people who practice one form or another of BDSM.
And the lesser-known facet of BDSM is there are PLENTY of male subs out there who enjoy being dominated. But unfortunately, the PPV sites make their money off men who want to see women subs, not the other way around. That’s why you see so much of it out there.
It bothers me that someone would rile up people based on a website that is NOT indicative of the majority of real-life BDSM practitioners out there. It’s like the scare when I was a kid where people declared that teenagers who listened to heavy metal would go on to do drugs and commit suicide. Um, no, not so much.
I’m NOT defending NON-CONSENSUAL acts, or those with minors. That is NOT what I’m doing.
I’m saying that if you stood in a room with 100 people, chances are, there’s several of them in there, people you would think of as “normal,” who have some sort of private kink going on. Are they hurting you by enjoying their private pleasure? No.
February 14, 2009 at 7:01 PM
The original post asked for someone to defend Kink.com. But that’s bass-akwards: Freedom of Speech (enshrined in the Constitution, but actually even broader than that as a concept) demands that those who would deny that speech defend their attempt at censorship. And unless you can get damn-near universal consensus on that censorship, one is left with the problem of deciding who is the arbiter of appropriateness!
But there are a few points that the Righteously Indignant are missing and/or ignoring for convenience. One is that any site like Kink.Com is, at its core, entertainment, and entertainment exaggerates, dramatizes, and likes to shock! One example of an entertainer who epitomizes this is the same Howard Stern who was cited as, apparently, a reason to oppose Kink.com along the same lines as the dislike of torture. But Stern makes no bones about why he is successful:
Just as there are people who enjoy looking at the stuff that Stern and/or Kink.com produces, there are as many, if not more, people who enjoy ranting and railing against Stern and/or Kink.Com. (Same is true with all the political talk shows: Limbaugh’s audience is split between those who agree — to some extent — with his politics, and those who enjoy the indignation and feeling of moral superiority listening to his waffle).
In short, just about everyone who demands that Something Must Be Done is engaged in a form of mental masturbation, not much different from those who engage in (presumably) a more physical form of masturbation as a result of Kink.Com.
More issues: rape fantasies are very, very common — as fantasies. Ditto kidnapping. Ditto torture. In NONE of those situations does a rational human being confuse the fantasy with the reality. They are different.
Movies frequently show killings, car crashes, bombings, etc. Not even the most zealous try to suggest that a movie depiction is likely to result in people deciding to kill, crash cars, bomb things… yet as soon as porn gets mentioned, the loons rush out and claim that porn will instantly create an army of zombies acting out the behavior shown in the porno.
To the self-proclaimed “feminists”: feminism means empowering women with the right and the ability to choose to do anything that a man could choose to do. No more and no less, and pretending somehow that the choice to stay home and raise babies barefoot in the kitchen is wrong is to deny what feminism actually is. All feminism demands is that the choice should be the woman’s, not the man’s. It shouldn’t take a genius to realize that this implies that woman must have the right to choose to make themselves subservient to, well, anyone they like (man, woman, child, dog, hamster… their choice, not yours).
Finally, would the Righteously Indignant prefer that Johnny Notquiterightinthehead have to experiment with amateur torture, or merely click on Kink.Com? I don’t think there should be any question on the subject, but I’m amazed at the number of idiots who think that one can legislate away the variations in humanity.
[ Just for grins, the Soviets frequently treated dissent as a mental condition. I'm not sure I'm in favor of any policy that steers the USA in the direction proven so harmful by the USSR! ]
February 14, 2009 at 7:56 PM
“1) One website is not the sole spokesperson for an entire demographic of society.”
I would just like to repeat here from the comment I just added to the ‘A Question for Doms’ thread that the business practices of professional sex workers (such as the models at Kink dot com) should not be conflated with the lifestyles of kinky people. One is based on the capitalist accrual of wealth, one is based on real desires, real people, and real relationships. With such different motivations and modes of operations, the results, which might seem superficially similar, are completely different. This should be taken into account by those of you who are not kinky and therefore won’t automatically see/feel the difference.
February 14, 2009 at 8:53 PM
Malc – No one is talking about legislating anything. It’s a moral judgment, not a call for legal action. Also, you’re being an asshole. If you want to participate in this discussion, avoid telling feminists what feminism is about and avoid the condescension. I promise, you aren’t smarter than we are just because you’ve grasped the basics of a myopic, self-serving political ideology.
February 14, 2009 at 8:58 PM
@Lillie
“I’ll stop with the naive questions now, but I can’t help but wonder – what would a kinky person do if s/he were to fall in love with someone non-kinky, “vanilla”, and “boring”? I’ve always thought people are surprisingly adaptable, and to tie your identity up (har, har) with a particular form of sexual expression is – or so it seems to me – to miss a whole gamut of things people have to offer in love relationships, and other ways in which people can be compatible.”
Well, we could speak to this question with another alternate. You see, I am a submissive woman who is also Poly (as in Polyamorous.) Or, as some might say, I practice ethical non-monogamy. That means that I have committed relationships with one relatively vanilla lover and two decidedly kinky ones. So, you see, I can have the best of both worlds, and a stunning abundance of love, as well as get my ass whipped with a flogger.
Of course, I’m nothing but a mindless, oppressed female who doesn’t know what she wants or needs, so that hardly counts, does it?
To ND and some others in this discussion:
Opinion is one thing, arrogance and condescension are quite different ones. But then, as a 60 year old woman who lived the “oppressed” life of being a wife and mother for 30 years, who has authored two **horror of horrors** romance novels, designed clothing to **horror of horrors** enhance a woman’s sexual attributes, who loves skirts and heels and makeup and even **horror of horrors* shave my pubis for esthetic reasons, I can hardly speak to the freedom to make choices, can I?
Of course that isn’t the whole picture of who I am. I’m not someone who can be placed in anyone’s neat little box. I’m an individual and I’ve made the choices for my life, good and bad, with and sometimes without due consideration of their consequences — but they were my choices, not foisted on me by anyone. And I take full responsibility for them.
Freedom is about being fully actualized. I am. We make our lives what they are by our choices and by the expectations we have. We live within the structure we choose. It’s so simply and yet so difficult to comprehend.
Whatever you or anyone on this forum may think of who I am or what I do, save your pity and condescension for someone else. Doesn’t matter if you understand or agree with what I do. I’m happy. BDSM, bi-sexuality, polyamory, unconventional and even non-politically-correct artistic freedom, are all part of what I want in my life. And if I smile with sweet remembrance when I sit down and wince at the ass bruises, well honey, that’s my prerogative. I sure don’t need anyone’s approval.
February 14, 2009 at 9:04 PM
“I would like to point how how incredibly amusing I find the gay posters who are absolutely aghast that “Those People” could dare to compare themselves with good, wholesome LGBT folk.”
As someone who’s queer and kinky, I keep waiting for an explanation why exactly so many people talk about those two things as if they’re mutually exclusive.
February 14, 2009 at 9:09 PM
ranat:
“One is based on the capitalist accrual of wealth, one is based on real desires, real people, and real relationships. ”
While I agree with your general sentiment — that pornography is unrealistic — I think there’s something really unfortunate in this wording. Yes, people in pornography are acting, presenting things that are generally unrealistic for the enjoyment of the viewer.
But sex workers ARE “real people.” The fact that they’re acting doesn’t make them fake humans or something.
I’m guessing that was just an unclarity, but there’s an awful lot of useless dehumanization of sex workers out there, and I don’t think we need to dip our toes into that cesspool to say “hey, this represents real life about as well as Who’s the Boss did.”
February 15, 2009 at 3:27 AM
“If you want to participate in this discussion, avoid telling feminists what feminism is about”.
Wait…does this mean we can’t tell the BDSMers what BDSM is about anymore? Aw….
February 15, 2009 at 6:06 PM
All of those women on Kink.com’s websites are willing participants. They get paid to do that stuff. It’s their job. If they weren’t willing participants, I’m sure you’d hear about the FBI or someone investigating them and putting people in jail.
February 15, 2009 at 7:09 PM
Brian – Duh. That isn’t the point.
February 15, 2009 at 7:50 PM
@ Trinity -
“While I agree with your general sentiment — that pornography is unrealistic — I think there’s something really unfortunate in this wording. Yes, people in pornography are acting, presenting things that are generally unrealistic for the enjoyment of the viewer.
But sex workers ARE “real people.” The fact that they’re acting doesn’t make them fake humans or something.”
That’s a good point. I didn’t mean to imply that in my wording, so thanks for pointing it out. What I probably should have said is that sex workers such as the models at Kink dot com are playing a part, a character which is defined by the motivations to accrue wealth. My main point though was that these parts do not necessarily reflect their real desires, or the desires of kinky people at large, because the source of motivation is so different.
Apologies to the sex workers! I didn’t think about all the ramifications of my wording.
February 15, 2009 at 8:05 PM
ranat,
I understood you, and figured you probably didn’t mean it that way. Just wanted to make sure. :)
February 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM
“Just because we want something doesn’t make it right. Being aroused by domination is something we’ve been programmed to do since birth. That doesn’t mean we should hurt people or celebrate pain. And you know what? I will shame people that hurt other people, because in my opinion that is part of the social contract (and it isn’t the sex that is shameful).”
I disagree vehemently. I wasn’t societally conditioned to be submissive or to be aroused by domination. I was raised by a single-man-hating mother who had no use for men beyond getting her sexual needs met once in a while. If anything I was raised to be the oppressor, not the oppressed.
I never have bought into societal conditioning, I became disillusioned with the Christian church around the age of six or seven when in Sunday school I was told that I was “bad” because I was a female and Eve was a woman who got everyone cast out of the Garden of Eden. I inherently *knew* that was wrong.
But I’ve also always hated man-bashing. The women who gleefully engage in man-bashing act as if men are somehow lesser because they have penises. Someone please explain the logic in that? Please explain to me how reversing oppresion can POSSIBLY create any type of equality?
I’m quite proudly slave to my Master/husband. I didn’t choose what I am but I did choose who I submitted to. I chose to shed my mother’s conditioning because it wasn’t me. There is nothing shameful in what happens between CONSENTING adults. (note the emphasis on consent)
I chuckle at the comments that say submissive women have no choice in their “tortures”. Actually I laughed out loud because I am the inventor of some of my “worst tortures”. I ask for some things that may disturb others because they make me feel good, they make me happy, and joyful. I take great pleasure in the sexual S/m but I also take pleasure and pride in cooking a healthy and tasty meal to serve to my Master and family. I take pride in having raised independently thinking children. I take pride in being a whole person who doesn’t feel shamed by her sexuality.
Oppressed? I think not. Just acting out what “society” has taught me? That’s laughable. If I did that I’d be an anorexic ball-busting b*tch making my way up the corporate ladder and taking no prisoners, while blaming society for all of my problems and not taking any personal responsibility for my own choices or for my children.
THAT is what society is teaching. Lack of personal responsibility, lack of culpability. Male or female, it makes no difference, you’re not responsible because someone else is to blame.
February 15, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Wow. Now there’s the kind of feminist I’d love if I was a dude.
February 15, 2009 at 11:21 PM
I like the way “man-bashing” (metaphorical) is supposed to be the worst thing ever, whilst “woman-bashing” (literal) is liberatory sexuality that we should all get behind.
February 15, 2009 at 11:25 PM
I like the way “man-bashing” (metaphorical) is supposed to be the worst thing ever, whilst “woman-bashing” (literal) is liberatory sexuality that we should all get behind.
Depends if the men consent…
February 16, 2009 at 12:06 AM
Interesting discussion…..
I’m curious with regards one thing.
Firstly, how would you define feminism and why feminist political ideology should be applied to BDSM relationships?
February 16, 2009 at 12:11 AM
Don’t be lazy. Read around if you want to know the answer to that question.
February 16, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Please don’t think me lazy or anything. I want to know what it means to you ND
February 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM
Dude, you’ve got a blog here with 150 or so entries explaining how I conceive of feminism.
February 16, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Wow… that’s an awful lot. I’m impressed. I’ll get round to reading them at some point.
You see, I wouldn’t consider myself arrogant enough to preach my views to anyone but, reading through you’re first blog about your investigations I couldn’t help but feel that you focused heavily on M/F domination and upon the pornography on the kink.com website. Aren’t there parallels between vanilla porn and BDSM porn?
February 16, 2009 at 12:34 AM
Of course. Like I said, I’ve written thousands of words on the subject. If you really actually do care to know what my stance is, read what I’ve said.
February 16, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I’m trying to agree some common ground.
My view on pronography is that it seeks to make a profit from peoples base desires in a manner that dehumanises all involved (not just the ladies who participate) and that it exploits those who participate and watch.
February 16, 2009 at 12:42 AM
I don’t disagree, I just think BDSM porn is more obvious about it.
February 16, 2009 at 12:49 AM
Good.
But why not apply the same argument to F/M domination, and with the same vigour? Is the humiliation and degradation of men in pornography just as symptomatic of societies ills?
February 16, 2009 at 12:50 AM
I agree ND, you really don’t write about feminism and women’s issues enough.
February 16, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Mat – Come on. Do you really think men are degraded in porn in the same sense that women are and on the same scale?
February 16, 2009 at 12:54 AM
They’re treated as machinery, effectively.
February 16, 2009 at 12:55 AM
Yeah, but in real life they’re human beings. And I’d rather be treated like a machine than a piece of trash.
February 16, 2009 at 12:57 AM
Yeah, but in real life they’re human beings.
Sorry, what?
And I’d rather be treated like a machine than a piece of trash.
Each is equally dehumanising.
February 16, 2009 at 1:00 AM
1 – Men are not generally reduced to objects in daily life, and women are.
2 – No, sorry. One includes hatred as well as dehumanization, and is the graphic representation of the fact that we live in a misogynistic society. Let’s just get us a male:female ratio on facial shots.
February 16, 2009 at 1:02 AM
1 – Men are not generally reduced to objects in daily life, and women are.
Hahahahahaahaa.
You honestly have never heard of “Human Resources”?
2 – No, sorry. One includes hatred as well as dehumanization, and is the graphic representation of the fact that we live in a misogynistic society.
So we are agreed that each is equally de-humanising?
February 16, 2009 at 1:02 AM
Absolutely not.
February 16, 2009 at 1:04 AM
How does hating something that is not human make it even less human?
February 16, 2009 at 1:06 AM
Of course, both are dehumanised to different degrees and different ways. Pornography depicting F/M domination tends to dehumanise males moreso than women. In my humble opinion the extent is about as relevant as gender in the equation. Both are human beings first. And that brings me to the second question.
Is this a gender issue or an exploitation issue?
February 16, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Mat – It’s a gender issue and an exploitation issue. There’s no way you can pretend that men suffer negative effects of porn to the same extent that women do. And you’re not paying close enough attention to F/M BDSM porn.
James – Knock it off.
February 16, 2009 at 1:21 AM
Tell the truth, I’ve seen both, and the treatment meted out to men in Femdom pornography is equal to the women on a site such as kink.com.
A site you might be disgusted by is the English Mansion.com
The main difference between that site and kink.com is that there isn’t the nice little interviews with the submissive men where they get the chance to say whether or not they enjoyed it.
I guess this comes back to what you believe feminism actually is.
And what James is saying is more valid than you’d care to admit.
February 16, 2009 at 1:37 AM
ND – In lieu of an answer to my question I’ll elaborate on my position.
Trash and machinery is an equal degradation, as neither possess sentience. Only sentient beings are of any worth transcendent beyond what we attribute to our surrounds because it is only the sentient which can perform that act of attribution. This makes them a key part of the structure of existence which can never be true of any non-sentient.
A common criticism of the pomos, the existentialists, et al, is that they devalue human life. Nothing could be further from the truth: if all meaning is imposed then the only source of any meaning in the world are those capable of such imposition. Without the sentient there can only be nihil.
So yes, you might as well be a machine or trash. If there is no mind and no thought then you would be utterly uninterested in your condition either way. Indeed there wouldn’t be a “you” at all. I suppose that the natural flip-side of Descartes, more than anything.
You may have a point with regards to contempt (personally I’d say that there’s a lot of reverence there, or at least as much as is required to commit sacrilege, but these things are problematic to argue over), but you have none when you say that men are not objectified. It ranges from the aforementioned HR (although since women are now an almost entirely integrated part of the labour force they are as much under the remit of HR managers as men) to my Ministry of Defence (and your DoD) that sees its soldiers as autonomous mobile rifle carriers, entirely expendable and nothing more. I’d go so far as to say that seeing people as a resource is an inevitability under any capitalist system (as well as any alternative I’ve seen in action).
February 16, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Mat and James: Uh, I have no words for how much both of you are NOT HELPING.
Howzabout you at least read some of the comments above you, eh?
February 16, 2009 at 1:54 AM
Mat – You’re a fucking fool if you think that men are as damaged by porn as women are. The end.
February 16, 2009 at 5:00 AM
ND, you stated to Malc, “If you want to participate in this discussion, avoid telling feminists what feminism is about and avoid the condescension. I promise, you aren’t smarter than we are just because you’ve grasped the basics of a myopic, self-serving political ideology.” Well, the same can be said to you about BDSM. You ARE telling those of use who are more than acquainted with BDSM what it is, when clearly, you really don’t have a working idea of what it is in real life. Based on your rants, it is clear that you’ve not really examined this from the psychological POV, nor from the real life POV. Checking out one website and then…ranting about that website? And basing your whole opinion of it on one website? Hell, anyone can do that. Taking the time to really do the investigation, attending munches, collaring ceremonies, homes of those who are practicing D/s or M/s on a regular basis, now THAT takes work. However, doing that work to properly and thoroughly research your subject matter would not make for the wonderfully inflamed blog that initiated all these comments, nor would it allow the dehumanization of those whom you write about.
I suggest taking the time to attend a collaring ceremony, a munch, a lecture-demo, and then revisiting this topic. Talk to Dominants, in real life. Find out what we really are about before rushing to snap decisions.
Oh, for the record? My mom is a man hating feminist who owns an original copy of Ms. Magazine, along with almost every issue of it from its inception. ;-) One more point to trash the “this is what we’re taught” theory? My Dad left my Mom for another man, who happened to be into kink. My Dad was a Leatherman, back in the 1970s to 1990s. He wanted me to be a dominant, strong woman, never submissive to a man, as did my mom.
February 16, 2009 at 5:50 AM
WTF?
ND, where did the spacemonkeys come from?
YES, porn can ultimately be dehumanizing to both men and women and can be very overall misanthropic (an argument I have been making for years)…
However, anyone who thinks that on the whole it is as degrading towards men as it is towards women is a certified moron. And I say that as someone who freakin’ loves porn.
February 16, 2009 at 9:21 AM
“Tell the truth, I’ve seen both, and the treatment meted out to men in Femdom pornography is equal to the women on a site such as kink.com.”
Quite likely, but there tends to be much less of it. The majority of BDSM porn is about degrading women. And M/f is closer to “mainstream” pornography, although that might be saying something more about mainstream porn and society than M/F.
February 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Yes. I’m a tool. Hey ho! Life goes on.
Your writings indicate intelligence and reading. So why resort to petty name calling? Couldn’t you apply a little more imagination to your efforts? I can think of several far more cuting insults, many of them used in real life. It’s water off a ducks back.
In order to advance human rights (and this inevitably includes womens rights) common ground has to be sought. This is precisely what James does in his posts: it’s even handed and the issues apply just as much to women as they do to men. So how is this not helpful?
The scope of your writings on BDSM seems quite limited. If all you’ve seen is the kink.com website I can understand your attitudes. It’s pornography, the accusations levelled against are completely justified and are true of all pornography. The assertion that women are harmed more than men is quite correct but as an argument lacks both imagination and range. How does pornography influence male attitudes towards women, and vice versa? Should this not be considered harm?
Your approach seems to be: draw a line, say that everyone who does not entirely agree with you is on the other side of it and declare them the enemy. May I ask: what do you expect to achieve beyond preaching to the converted and inciting counter productive conflict?
Liberty and respect first: I support all attempts to increase the freedoms and liberties for all women and strongly believe that is in the interests of all men to do this. Should I consider myself free if others are not. I would find it dissapointing if you could not concede this.
The issues presented aren’t limited to gender politics. If someone has liberty and freedom, they will live their lives as they see fit. I can disagree with that, or find their actions distasteful and thus choose my own path. In short, when I gaurantee anothers freedom I protect my own. You seem quick to condemn those who live their lifes as they see fit. What freedom should you expect?
What place does gender politics have when regarding human relationships? I could place an ad claiming to be a submissive woman and providing little other information I know precisely what to expect. Shallow and vacuous souls? They wouldn’t tell you anything you shouldn’t expect. It would be easy to pander to my own prejudice. It would be less productive than attempting honest and constructive dialogue.
It would undoubtably have been nicer for that building to have been converted to an art museum. I’m reminded of something I learnt studying soviet era politics: pollitical beliefs and ideologies are shaped by individual circumstance.
In case your wondering I’ve read the majority of comments above, including those I agree and disagree with. Personally, I wouldn’t waste my time with petty insults. It doesn’t help half as much as reasoned argument.
But yeah, I’m a stupid thick tool, right? What should I expect.
February 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM
I’d rather be treated like trash than a machine…
…so long as it’s consensual, you know. That’s my choice. Is that choice “feminist”? I wouldn’t say so. But I wouldn’t say it’s incompatible with feminism, with me being a feminist.
Disagree? Go ahead. But I wonder at the end of the day, what are you advocating here, ND, or what are you proposing?
You keep saying variations on the “No one is talking about legislating anything” line. So what are you talking about? You’re making no bones about it being a moral judgment. Maybe in your mind this moral judgment is targeted with laser-like precision on the Patriarchy and on the men who “get off on torture”. Maybe not. But in reality, you’re wielding a flamethrower loaded up with slutshameum and you’re torching a pretty wide swath.
I have needs. Sexual needs. To read your posting—and similar sentiments that have been expressed by some other feminists—it seems like my choices are pretty basic:
Whore or Madonna.
I can live out my life like a nun, praying that some day there will be a generation born free of Patriarchy in part because my sacrifice helped stop the creation of “torture porn”… or I can be a slut, crossing the line of what has been morally judged to be proper for a woman.
I’m a Whore, because I’m not cut out to be a martyr. I’m working on accepting myself more so I don’t feel that way, but the shame is still there. I wonder how you feel about that. Do you consider it progress for me, for women, for anybody, if I feel less ashamed? Or do you think this shame is a good thing that I should be feeling, for doing something morally wrong?
Here’s an extension of that question for you, a serious yet utterly hypothetical situation:
If the Great Cosmic Judge of Such Things appeared before you and declared that you had been selected at random to decide whether all women who enjoy male-domination BDSM would feel deeply ashamed of their “kink” or be utterly okay with it, what would your decision be?
February 16, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Oh, Alexandra…I love your post and your hypothetical question.
What has always intrigued and amused me about “feminists” ranting against women who choose to do something other than they do, themselves, personally, is that they really don’t see that they’re being as chauvinistic to other women, as they’re screaming about men being to women. If you’re pro-women’s rights, including a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, in terms of abortion, then, why on earth does it not also follow suit that, if you want a woman to be able to choose what to do with her body in THAT instance, that that carries over to s & m AND dominance and submission? Connect the dots, folks, those of you ranting about how oppressed female submissives are.
Furthermore, I would highly recommend reading this article posted in the NYTimes about Kink.com. I found it fascinating. Perhaps doing more research into a subject, other than clicking on a few links, would yield a more productive discussion, as opposed to all the early “ME TOO!” posts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/magazine/29kink.t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1
February 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM
While my Master is sitting there flogging/spanking/paddling/whipping/caning the crap out of me, my wrists and ankles bound, my thoughts are null and I feel like I’m floating.
My naked body quivers with sweat, and I sometimes think that the sound of his voice is enough to make me cum.
He releases my bindings, and rubs lotion over my bruises and welts, kisses me deeply, and pronounces what a “good girl” I have been.
After our play, we take a shower, washing each other, then cuddle on the couch to watch a movie, giggling and focused solely on each other.
I can see the love in his eyes. The loves for me, his bestfriend, partner, and submissive.
He lights a cigarette for me, and asks if I’ve read the new Scientfic American, yet. We talk about nanotubes, and drink wine.
***
I love my Master. He loves and respects me.
If you say BDSM is wrong, then you say our love and relationship is wrong.
And to that, I say fuck you.
February 17, 2009 at 1:47 AM
What a poet Val is.
February 17, 2009 at 1:48 AM
Bella – No more straw men allowed. No one here is telling anyone they ought not to be allowed to do anything. And if you put the word feminist in quotes again in reference to me, you’re banned.
February 17, 2009 at 2:23 AM
it seems as if your original post had really two purposes…on the surface, to challenge your readers to defend one particular website that is honestly not representative, by your own admission, of what most involved in the BDSM lifestyle are into. i will not be one of those trying to defend a website since it is not what i am “into”…i am sure it serves a purpose for those who go to the site, but i would wager a guess that most of those are indeed men who wish they could be involved in some of those scenes but find themselves unable or unwilling to do so in real life. from what little i have seen of it, it is an extreme form of BDSM meant to do but one thing, like most porn, generate money for the producers.
it is more of the “hidden” agenda of your post that i am disturbed by and wish to address here. that agenda being that porn and BDSM are morally corrupt and dehumanizing to women because they are being manipulated and brainwashed by men into believing that these activities are ok and truthfully what they want.
first of all to understand D/s and BDSM, one must understand that the activities that people engage in under the umbrella of BDSM are as wide ranged and varied as those engaged in by any group of “vanilla” couples. and that many of the activities BDSMers carry out are also done by “vanilla” couples behind closed doors…ie, blindfolds, spanking, etc…..does this also mean that the “vanilla” couple who wanting to put some spice into the sex life are also morally corrupt? Many D/s relationships involve no pain, no torture of any kind..they are power exchange relationships where one person, either temporarily or fulltime gives up their personal power to another. given your “extensive” research on BDSM i am sure you know that in any true D/s relationship almost all the power truly lies with the submissive for they have the power to stop anything and everything that happens just by saying so.
You seem to cast all BDSM relationship into one group and say they are wrong because women are giving up their personal freedom to men and allow themselves to be tortured by these men without regard to their own personal safety. that men who are involved with BDSM are evil and sadistic. and there maybe some who are, i am sure in a lifestyle as large as BDSM that there are some who are exactly those things…but that is a far cry from all or even most. and at the same time you seem to omit several segments of the BDSM “family” who are also engaged in many of these activities. the Mistress and Her male submissive or someone like me..a bi female submissive who is in a long term loving D/s relationship with a bi female Domme. Are we as morally corrupt because i enjoy the caress of a flogger upon my skin or because i willingly and lovingly give up my power to Her in our relationship?
February 17, 2009 at 4:28 AM
@nd::
Cool. I’m a poet.
But do you deny our love, or say that our relationship is wrong?
February 17, 2009 at 4:28 AM
I would if I gave a shit. Your relationship isn’t my concern here.
February 17, 2009 at 5:11 AM
You assume a lot, ND. I wasn’t referencing you when I put feminists in quotes, but, if it upsets you, I will refrain from doing so, though, I will point out that not putting something in quotes is, for the way I was writing, incorrect grammar. I was referencing ALL the people who call themselves feminists that have posted about wanting to remove a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, including the rabid anti-choicers who call themselves “pro-life”.
I’ve come across hundreds of them, feminists who think they know better than any other woman, in the 5 short years since I discovered BDSM, each one more concerned than the last with “rescuing” me and other women like me. I know fetish models, some of whom I am fortunate to call friends, who have had feminists try to save them, failing to recognize that we have made the choice that WE want to make, same as the models at kink.com…..and no one is advocating shutting it down? Really? No one is advocating legal action? May I draw your attention to one post that jumps into my memory from Zelda on February 7 @3:50AM:
“This is not a matter of freedom of speech; This is a matter of freedom from being tortured by sadistic fucks. If our legal system does not allow someone to consent to torture, then a perverted as fuck site like Kink.com needs to be shut down.”
To me, that’s a pretty clear telling someone they aren’t allowed to do something, that they want the website censored and shut down. You, yourself, push the envelope pretty darned close to calling for closing down kink.com. Zelda is also not alone. She just happened to be the first one that i found tonight.
I have to ask, did you even read the article that the NYTimes did on the website? Are you aware that, in this time of increasing cuts to health care provided by employees, THEIR employees have, from what I read, far better health care than the average employee in the US does? As far as I can see;
1) The women employed there, and ALL the employees there, are doing something they want to do.
2) They are well paid for the jobs they perform, including excellent health care benefits.
3) They ARE “employees”. They aren’t kidnapped and forced into what they are doing, which, as I pointed out in my first post, is the cornerstone of BDSM; consensuality.
4) What they’re doing, much like with gay marriage, doesn’t reflect on anything else in the “real” world. To say that what fetish models are doing, somehow cheapens or lessens the real life white slave trade, is as ridiculous as saying that same sex marriage cheapens or lessens heterosexual marriages. Fetish modeling is fantasy, NOT reality. White slave trade is reality, and a very real problem, but it has nothing to do with consensual fetish modeling, much the same as NYC runway modeling has slim to nothing to do with “real” life.
5) If you don’t like looking at it, don’t look at it. I don’t like WWE so I don’t watch it.
Lastly, as I gather from your writings that you are still reading up on BDSM, I would suggest studying something called “subdrop”. It is akin to when a marathon runner “hits the wall”, with regards to a drop in hormone and endorphin levels. What masochists experience, in real life, is not that different from what anyone going through something strenuous goes through, in terms of the endorphin and adrenaline releases. In cultures not as hung up on things as ours, there have actually been studies done on this. Here is a link to one such article about “whipping therapy” and how it cures depression:
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/15176_whipping.html
Bella
February 17, 2009 at 7:22 AM
@nd::
By saying that you don’t give a shit… why the anti-BDSM rants, then?
My relationship IS your concern. If you dispise BDSM, then you dispise my relatioship.
I’m only one of millions. Basically, you’re saying that many, many relationships are invalid.
You’re taking the EXTREME cases, and making biased judgements against kinky, loving folk. Where’s the middle ground?
February 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM
“4) What they’re doing, much like with gay marriage, doesn’t reflect on anything else in the “real” world. To say that what fetish models are doing, somehow cheapens or lessens the real life white slave trade, is as ridiculous as saying that same sex marriage cheapens or lessens heterosexual marriages.”
“I’m only one of millions. Basically, you’re saying that many, many relationships are invalid.”
It would seem to me that it’s not individuals that are the concern, it’s the trend. If I personally choose to do something by myself, that is unimportant, but if a large number of persons choose to do something by themselves, then it becomes different. At least I’d assume that is at least part of the issue, though it does tend to lead to dismissing individual cases as irrelevant to the whole, while they are what makes up the whole in the end.
“You’re taking the EXTREME cases, and making biased judgements against kinky, loving folk. Where’s the middle ground?”
I’d like to see that as well. Or maybe even, from those who think that BDSM is wrong, a discussion about where something becomes BDSM and hence wrong, instead of being “normal”, and what they think about things approaching, but not passing, that point.
“5) If you don’t like looking at it, don’t look at it. I don’t like WWE so I don’t watch it.”
Well…as much as I respect the rights of others to do what they want, that line has certain connatations for me, it’s one I’ve seen used to justify all sorts of content that I really object to.
February 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM
You make valid points, Val, and address my underlying concern about rants from ANYONE over women who don’t conform to their particular pigeonholes. Feminists put pressure on non-conforming women to be other than what they are, as do other aspects of society which seek to advance THEIR cause, as opposed to the cause of all women. This is a complete and total failure to recognize that they, the feminists, are doing what they are ranting against. *Some* feminists take away women’s choices just as often as men and the religious right do.
Ranting about abuse of women is one thing, and on that, as a victim of rape and molestation, I will wholeheartedly support and join the cause. I work with abused women. Ranting against consensual acts teaches women that, “No, sweetie, you really don’t have the right to choose how to live your life, and *I* know what is best for you, so, don’t worry your pretty little head about the fact that you are sexually unfulfilled. *I* know what is best for all women, in terms of leading a fulfilling sex life, and you ONLY have the choices that *I* give you and want you to have!” Sorry, but that is pure hogwash.
Let me ask this, to those of you who want kink.com closed, along with other pornography sites;
1) Do YOU have jobs to offer all the people who will then be unemployed, including all the women?
2) Do YOU have healthcare benefits to offer all the people who will then not have healthcare benefits?
3) (Most importantly) Do YOU want the government to have the ability to censor that sort of speech? If so, do you realize that once they do that, they’ll come after sites like this with all the cussing on them? Seriously….the amount of “fucks” and “shits” and “mother fuckers” on this blog….I thought I’d stumbled upon a rap site, and if they go after kink.com, as they did go after the porn industry under “W”, do you realize that they’ll come after you, next?
4) Do all of you who are proposing that BDSM relationships are invalid understand that you ARE advocating taking away a woman’s right to self determine and choose who she is and how she expresses her sexuality and how she expresses herself privately? Is that really what you want, to take away more choices from women? If that is what being a feminist is, perhaps I am not a feminist, as I want to empower women to make the choices they want to make in their lives, free from societal pressures to conform and fit into nice, neat, tidy pigeonholes.
Bella
February 17, 2009 at 3:13 PM
“While my Master is sitting there flogging/spanking/paddling/whipping/caning the crap out of me, my wrists and ankles bound, my thoughts are null and I feel like I’m floating.”
It’s called disassociation and it’s a product of trauma.
Do you really think you are some extra-special snowflake who only this happens to? That nobody else has every experienced a body-mind split because of what is being inflicted on their body? The body has mechanisms in place to protect the mind from severe pain when there is no escape, but instead of respecting those mechanisms which are there to protect you in the most extreme circumstances you’re fooling around with them in the name of your ree-lay-shun-ship.
Is there any possibility that any of you will look at what you are doing in a wider context instead of this incredible me, me, me-ism – “if it happens to me it must be special and unique”. It really isn’t.
February 17, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I would like some clarification, I suppose.
What exactly IS the main argument here?
Is the argument against consensual BDSM relationships regardless of how willing all parties are and regardless of how much they enjoy it? If so, how can you morally or ethically defend that position? That’s the same as basically saying women don’t have the right to decide how they practice their sexuality. Just because you don’t agree with a consensual sexual practice doesn’t make it wrong. I don’t agree with some things, so I don’t practice them. It’s just that simple. I’m sure there are radical right-wing religious folks who believe that any sex outside of procreation is wrong, so even though my personal life is on the tame end of the scale, they probably think I’m damned to hell for enjoying it when my husband goes down on me (or vice versa). Oh well, I could care less what they think.
Is the argument against a website depicting things that might not be agreeable to some who view it, but the performers (and let’s face it, they ARE performers, actors and actresses paid for their work) are willingly doing it? If that’s the case, then just don’t go to the website. If the website isn’t violating any laws, then you’re proposing censorship, which, again, I can’t agree with and it’s a slippery slope.
And frankly, you’ve probably introduced a bunch of people to Kink.com and brought them a ton of new business by this anti-Kink campaign. *LOL*
Is the argument for imposing government restrictions on consensual sexual acts between legal adults? Again, I won’t agree with you there.
I feel the net has been cast too far and broad. It’s fine for someone to disagree with a lifestyle choice of another, that’s what this country was founded on, belief that people should have the right to live in the way they determine.
If the argument is that nonconsensual, illegal, forced victimization of people should not take place, then hell yeah, I’m on board. Duh.
But if the general argument is that people who practice consensual BDSM are sick freaks who should be ashamed of themselves and banned from practicing these same consensual acts with other consenting adults, sorry, that’s pretty much akin to the pro-lifers who want to dictate what women can do with their bodies, and I will never agree with you.
What I do, what other consenting adults do in their sexual lives, CONSENTING ADULTS, is nobody’s business. I don’t agree with mindless morons who give thousands of dollars to churches who encourage sheeple attitudes and pod-people behavior, either. I think they’re idiots. But they have the right to do it, and it’s not my business if they do it or not.
Choice is a cornerstone of the feminist movement, is it not? That’s what I – yes, a woman – have always been told. That we have a choice.
Just because some women WILLINGLY CHOOSE a certain path that someone else disagrees with doesn’t make that path wrong. I would never choose to go into a nunnery. (Do they even still have those?) I would never choose to go into the military. However, I respect those who choose to follow their convictions and their beliefs and do so.
Do NOT equate what happens with illegal, forced prostitution and slavery with consensual BDSM.
Just because it’s not YOUR choice doesn’t mean it’s a wrong choice.
February 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Bella:
For the Record: MOST porn performers do not get health care benefits via their jobs.
February 17, 2009 at 6:54 PM
@delphyne::
Its called subspace. Many, many men and women experience it. I’m no snowflake, dear. And it makes me warm, fuzzy, and giggly. It makes me want to cover my Master with kisses and tell him to hit harder.
I just find it so odd that you, as a feminist, believe that you know what’s best for MY vagina. And mind. What is sexually liberating about that?
I consider myself a feminist. But… I guess I don’t happen to be a prude.
February 17, 2009 at 6:56 PM
Val – Calling a woman a prude because she isn’t into what you’re into is hardly feminist. The prude/whore dichotomy is a little too patriarchal for my tastes. You’re an asshole and you’re banned.
February 17, 2009 at 7:07 PM
@nd::
She was basically making fun of me, and my boyfriend. I’m a psychology major with a minor in women’s studies, have my CNA, and have done extensive research on medicine… so to assume that I don’t know the body’s defense mechanisms is an assault on my intelligence. Why isn’t she banned?
I didn’t call anyone anything.
I just said that I wasn’t one.
You’ve telling me how I should(n’t) have sex, and who I should(n’t) have sex with. That’s just oh so nice and feminist.
February 17, 2009 at 7:14 PM
This post is about Kink.com, not you. Quit being so fucking narcissistic. I’m frankly sick of all these personal anecdotes. We can have a debate without giving each other the details of our sexual activities, because what’s being discussed here is a theoretical issue, not anyone’s personal practice. I don’t give a fuck what you are into and what you think is a good time, what I care about is the general furtherance of women’s liberation. If you think women’s liberation means your right to act as you see fit without regard for the effect your actions might have on other women, right on. But don’t come here and tell me or any other woman that we’re prudes because we’ve got a moral objection to something so saturated with problematic elements of patriarchy and oppression. And, really, don’t call anyone a prude. That’s a term men use to coerce women into sexual activities they aren’t comfortable with. See this.
February 17, 2009 at 8:10 PM
I didn’t say a word about your vagina, Val. Read what I wrote again.
I said what you were experiencing was disassociation and the mind/body split that can happen with trauma. If you’re a psychology major you may already know about it however I don’t know what they teach you on your course – psychology is a big field. I don’t care if BDSMers have their own stupid little term for it, we’ve already seen the sort of things BDSM euphemisms are used to cover up.
I didn’t make fun of you, I asked you why the hell you and your partner were using trauma inflicted on you as a means of getting excitement in your lives and why you were touting it as something marvellous.
I also don’t give a toss if you call me a prude. It just goes to show how weak your arguments are. Shorter BDSMers:
“Me, me, me, me, me. It’s all about ME. Disagree? You’re a prude.”
February 17, 2009 at 8:15 PM
ND,
While I understand your frustration with the personal anecdotes and agree that they don’t count as argument, I also think there’s something particular that this disconnect brings out:
One side is saying that personal anecdotes do count, because the personal experience is all we’ve got. “What BDSM means,” on such a view, is just what commonalities and themes can be found in thousands of personal stories. It’s whatever reasons for it, activities, and explanations are most common, most appealed to, most important. On this view the only way to come up with “what BDSM is about” is to read as many stories as possible (or, failing that, to come up with a sound method of selecting samples) and discover what you find.
The other side — which you’re on — says that a theory that makes no reference to actual experience can and does explain it, and therefore individual experiences are irrelevant and beside the point.
But my question is: what makes the theory itself one that we should accept, then? As I understand it, radical feminist theory itself arose from practices like consciousness raising, which was lots of women in groups sitting around describing their experiences, noticing commonalities, and coming up with theory that explained those commonalities and how to work to fix the problems that showed up over and over in the lives of many women.
Now, I wasn’t around in the ’70′s, so perhaps some second-wavers/radical feminists who were can correct me. But my question is: What exactly happened? Why does theory now trump experience, when commonalities in experience were precisely what led feminists to determine that sexism wasn’t just a personal matter, but rather a political one?
It really confuses me.
February 17, 2009 at 8:28 PM
It’s both personal and political, and I’m tired of people using their personal experiences to deny that there’s a political aspect. I’m tired of moral relativism and personal anecdotes because they’re clouding the issue. There IS a right side here, and it’s the side that opposes women’s oppression. Playing around with eroticizing oppression might be fun for some individuals, but that doesn’t mean that those of us who would like to see oppression end have to pretend there’s nothing problematic about it. I remain absolutely unconvinced that BDSM can be practiced in a way that leaves patriarchy aside (I feel the same way about all sex, so I’ll not hear another fucking word about BDSM vs. “vanilla” sex). I simply do not believe that these people telling me how feminist it is that they have the choice to be excited by fetishizing and eroticizing oppression have escaped the cultural messages that even I, a radical feminist (as labeled by others), haven’t been able to analyze my way out of completely. I’m not urging banning anything, I’m not telling anyone to be ashamed, but I am saying that our goal ought to be a world in which women are truly sexually autonomous beings. That means making choices with regard to sex from a set of options that aren’t limited by patriarchal social conditioning. We’ve lost the fucking plot here, clearly.
February 17, 2009 at 8:33 PM
“There IS a right side here, and it’s the side that opposes women’s oppression.”
Of course it is! That’s not at issue at all here. Even the grossly clueless BDSM folks who’ve been flooding in and acting like complete fools are not disagreeing with this.
What they are saying is that BDSM is not about oppression — that it is about something else. They are attempting to use personal anecdotes to illustrate this.
My question is: why is that illegitimate, when personal anecdotes are how, say, Dworkin called attention to the evils of pornography and domestic violence? The theory there came out of experience.
February 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Personal experiences do matter, but one anecdote doesn’t counteract entire theories based on the aggregate experiences of millions of others.
February 17, 2009 at 8:40 PM
The “personal is political” meant that women examined oppressive experiences in their own individual lives and related it to a wider system of male oppression of women. It had never been done before, previously women blamed everything that happened to us on ourselves and of course men were happy for that to happen. Consciousness raising was a project for women’s liberation, it wasn’t “Ooh, I had an orgasm, anything that causes one of those must be great!” without examining any of the political contexts or power dynamics that surrounded the orgasm.
The patriarchy is happy for women to be fucked. The patriarchy is happy for women to be tortured. Whilst you might enjoy either or both of those things, partaking in them certainly doesn’t mean you are doing anything radical, revolutionary nor are you working to liberate women.
And who says our theory has nothing to do with women’s lived experiences? You Trinity? You’re wrong. A whole lot of criticism of BDSM comes from women who have been on the receiving end of it and know all about it intimately. Just because you want to pretend those negative experiences don’t exist doesn’t make it true.
I don’t think it confuses you in the slightest though. It seems to me you’d like to create confusion however. The wide-eyed look doesn’t suit you.
February 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Dworkin also called attention to the evils of sadomasochism in relationships. That theory came out of experience too.
February 17, 2009 at 8:43 PM
Personal experiences do matter, but one anecdote doesn’t counteract entire theories based on the aggregate experiences of millions of others.
Spoken like a true ideologue.
February 17, 2009 at 8:46 PM
James – Your recent posts have added nothing to the discussion. If all you want to do is needle people, do it elsewhere. You and everyone else know better than to call me an ideologue. I mean, fuck, I’m letting you comment on my blog.
February 17, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Dworkin on female masochism:
“I believe that freedom for women must begin in the repudiation of our own masochism. I believe that we must destroy in ourselves the drive to masochism at its sexual roots. I believe that we must establish our own authenticity, individually and among ourselves–to experience it, to create from it, and also to deprive men of occasions for reifying the lie of manhood over and against us. I believe that ridding ourselves of our own deeply entrenched masochism, which takes so many tortured forms, is the first priority; it is the first deadly blow that we can strike against systematized male dominance. In effect, when we succeed in excising masochism from our own personalities and constitutions, we will be cutting the male life line to power over and against us, to male worth in contradistinction to female degradation, to male identity posited on brutally enforced female negativity–we will be cutting the male life line to manhood itself. Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it–only then will we know what it is to be free.”
February 17, 2009 at 8:57 PM
“Personal experiences do matter, but one anecdote doesn’t counteract entire theories based on the aggregate experiences of millions of others.”
Which is why I offered studies. There wasn’t much of a response.
February 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM
“I believe that ridding ourselves of our own deeply entrenched masochism, which takes so many tortured forms, is the first priority; it is the first deadly blow that we can strike against systematized male dominance. In effect, when we succeed in excising masochism from our own personalities and constitutions, we will be cutting the male life line to power over and against us”
Assuming she’s right about this — and I think she isn’t, but — wouldn’t it make more sense to first change men, rather than relying on women not to present men with the temptation?
February 17, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Men will keep that up until we refuse to allow it. Feminism is women’s movement, not men’s. They’ve got no reason to give up privilege, so we have to make them.
February 17, 2009 at 8:59 PM
If you think women’s liberation means your right to act as you see fit without regard for the effect your actions might have on other women, right on.
ok, here’s where it gets complicated for me.
ND, on the one hand, I hear you saying “I don’t care what you do in your personal sexual life.”
and yet, if that above statement is any indication, you actually DO care what I (or any other random kinky person) might do in my personal sexual life, because my actions, you feel, might have an effect on other women.
which sounds a lot like “if you hadn’t worn that short skirt, I wouldn’t have gotten sexually assaulted.”
so it’s a really mixed message you’re sending.
as for personal anecdotes – well, lots of great feminist thought came out of the sharing of personal anecdotes that everyone thought were unique to their own experience.
you can only say “I’m not talking about you” so many times before you’re not really talking about anyone.
myself, I think women’s personal anecdotes are valid enough in any feminist-leaning conversation.
February 17, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Anti-princess – You have the power to do what you want to in your sex life. It’s your prerogative. I have the prerogative to think it’s anti-feminist.
February 17, 2009 at 9:08 PM
A lot of ideologues let people comment who they are at ideological divergence with comment on their blogs. A fine example is here:
http://www.leninology.blogspot.com/
(Another blog I really admire, incidentally.)
I’m sorry that I offended you. As far as I am concerned no ideology is definitive, and none should be relied upon. At least not entirely. They all have their blindspots, and their points of forced muteness. It seems like radical feminism simply doesn’t have an answer to the happy BDSMers.
I asked you why you thought the Third Wave had happened and personally I consider that to be the reason: there were just spots it couldn’t hit. It’s the reason people abandon ideologies for new ones, it’s something that anyone interested in ideological history, and I am, sees a lot of (classical liberalism didn’t have answers to the socialists, new liberalism did, therefore…)
And no, I’m no doe-eyed Third Wave fan, it has it’s failings. Some pretty crippling ones, at times. But there’s a reason it came into existence and there’s a reason that the efforts of Penny Red to kick-start a Fourth one haven’t quite taken off. And amongst them was that the 2nd Wave, having been the movement that had a strong claim to being the most pleasure inducing one ever staged what with it’s Feed The Clitoris agenda, was becoming strikingly anti-utilitarian.
Perhaps that was inadvertent, idk.
But the 3rd Wave does have a lot more answers. And they waste a lot less time with this sort of stuff. Examining symptoms < Devising solutions
And I’m sorry for not contributing more, I’m a little stretched for time lately. I’m certainly not aiming to annoy people and nothing else but if that’s all I’ve been achieving then I guess I’ll reconsider commenting at all. Let me know how I’m doing, at any rate.
February 17, 2009 at 9:08 PM
Anti-princess – You have the power to do what you want to in your sex life. It’s your prerogative. I have the prerogative to think it’s anti-feminist.
okay.
but the fact that I even have a sexual prerogative is feminist, in my mind.
and how does my acting on my sexual prerogative hurt people who aren’t me?
if my acting on my sexual prerogative didn’t hurt other women, would it be NOT anti-feminist?
February 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Your sexual prerogative is still limited by the fact that we live in a society in which women’s choices for sexual expression are conditioned and limited. As is mine.
February 17, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Your sexual prerogative is still limited by the fact that we live in a society in which women’s choices for sexual expression are conditioned and limited. As is mine.
limited only by the imagination, in my opinion.
but that’s just my opinion. I don’t require or even expect anyone else to share it.
but you didn’t answer my questions.
more luridly phrased: how does the spanking I get hurt you, or Delphyne, or anyone else?
February 17, 2009 at 9:40 PM
You acquiesce to and further the idea that women are (and ought to be) submissive and masochistic.
February 17, 2009 at 9:48 PM
“you can only say “I’m not talking about you” so many times before you’re not really talking about anyone.”
This, yes.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that all these conversations actually say is “I see feminism this way, and because of this I choose not to participate in BDSM.” Sort of like the “well, I’m vegan, and I think ideally you should be too, but I don’t think I have the right to impose.”
Which is nothing I have a problem with — I don’t think that’s particularly reasonable feminism, but hey, I don’t run anyone’s life but my own.
What I don’t get is why it becomes this whole obsession with proving this is What Twoo Feminism Says, if people actually want nothing more than to explain why they don’t do SM and wish other people wouldn’t either.
February 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Because we can’t keep capitulating to patriarchy and expect it to end.
February 17, 2009 at 9:52 PM
“I asked you why you thought the Third Wave had happened and personally I consider that to be the reason: there were just spots it couldn’t hit.”
I’ve said this before and I’m sure I’ll say it several more times before I’m laid in the ground, but… the whitewashing of the Third Wave particularly bothers me. The most famous “spots it couldn’t hit” had to do with sexuality and the stuff we’re bickering about now, but somehow the history of women of color critiquing the second wave gets lost. Probably because white people don’t feel a need to pay as much attention to race issues as to how other white people fuck.
February 17, 2009 at 9:54 PM
(and of course, vaguely on this note there’s the whole famous article by Alice Walker critiquing a lesbian SM couple where “the mistress was white and the slave black” and all the racial creepiness of that and how clearly SM was a retrograde mocking of history by Whitey
only to have it pointed out that in the couple she was writing at such great length about, the top was Latina.)
February 17, 2009 at 9:58 PM
You acquiesce to and further the idea that women are (and ought to be) submissive and masochistic.
really? that’s all that means to you?
every time I engage in this (admittedly corny) behavior, I’m acquiescing to and furthering the idea that women are (and ought to be) submissive and masochistic? no matter what. no matter what the context, no matter who I’m with, no matter if I spend 99% of the rest of my time doing things that indicate that I feel women are (and ought to be) assertive and, er, non-masochistic?
since when am I (or any random kinky woman) Everywoman? isn’t part of feminist thought that I’m allowed to have desires different from the needs of my sister, my neighbor, my girlfriends? that one can’t say with authority “women want” or “women need”, because women are individual people and not a great big herd of interchangeable cows?
why do you (or any random radical feminist) think you can tell me what my body means?
does it matter what my partner thinks about that spanking and what it means?
can we not also say, by this logic, that every time a woman does, oh, I don’t know, particle physics, she is acquiescing to and furthering the idea that women are (and ought to be) brainy and useful?
what if the woman who’s getting the spanking is also a physicist? would she explode somehow from the conflicting messages?
February 17, 2009 at 9:59 PM
But what would be the outcome of two kinky people in a relationship defying their urges be? Would it be a battering of the Patriarchy? Far more likely that instead it would just be a pair of unsatisfied people who aren’t sexually content.
I would also like to add:
“you can only say “I’m not talking about you” so many times before you’re not really talking about anyone.”
Fucking THIS.
February 17, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Grumble…
Crack diagnosis of dissociative states or episodes via the Internet by non-trained professionals do not fact make. What a radical feminist who is not involved or a fan of BDSM calls a dissociative state might merely be a post sex high to someone else.
As for personal antidotes…well, people use them because, surprise surprise, there is no such thing as a Universal Everything, and thus, there is no one answer to questions regarding much of anything, so people go off of what they know, what they’ve seen, and how it’s been. This is true for anything. I am willing to bet cash money that on pretty much any topic, if you ask a group of people to define and discuss something, you are going to get slightly, if not wildly, different answers from everyone.
I want to know where, exactly, the massive overpowering war cry of BDSM (the act) is SOO feminist is coming from. Show me please? I’ll go tell said people that gee, they might be mistaken, personally…
However, being told how wrong (or excuse me, not on the right side) one is and all the other…assertions…that have been made all over the past several threads about people into BDSM are not exactly endearing it’s practitioners to radical feminism in the least. Instead, it is making them feel alienated, beat up on in a not good not consensual way, talked down to, or, in some cases, just generally pissy and of the mind that radical feminism is no less authoritarian and controlling in theory (and practice) than it’s male-driven counterpart- Patriarchy.
And as for the what about me, you know, that is a two way street. Yes, my enjoyment of whatever sexually might have repercussions on other people. Nod nod, it might. However, someone saying, “this should not be done because it taints the way men see…. (me)…” then makes it, well, what about meeee as well. Me not being into BDSM or what have you even if I want to be into it? Well, okay, I have then taken one for the team, but I have now been affected by someone else saying “what about me?” Thus, that persons dislike of something sexual also has repercussions on people who do like it. There are “me’s” all over the place, and yeah, they all affect each other in one-way or another. But just as no one is forcing me to lock up my whips, I am not forcing anyone to pick on up either. Two way street, that what about me business.
And so what if my sexual prerogative is limited? I rather wonder about that personally, I have in my day tried a lot of different things…and amid that myriad of things, well, I’ve found things I really like to do and I do them. I have found things I really do not like and thus, I do not do them. I am all for people doing what they like, and not doing what they don’t. I think that is a grand idea, really. BUT, tell me this…why does the assumption that some folk just have not examined or considered or whatever else enough still persist? I am actually fairly certain that pretty much no matter what, on occasion, I would probably enjoy roughing people up during sex or having that done to me during sex. Even if the world was all equal and peaceful and shit like that…I bet I would still dig some hair pulling and slapping action. And guess what, until someone can solidly prove otherwise???
That’s right, I shall stick with, of all the things I have tried, what I enjoy. That happens to be it.
I am also curious how the idea came about that if a woman was submissive sexually that suddenly, she was also submissive in every other way possible and thus always projecting the image of “women as submissive”? There are a lot of submissive women who are, outside of a sexual context, real hellions who take shit from no one.
February 17, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Because we can’t keep capitulating to patriarchy and expect it to end.
so, if I read you correctly, every time I say “spank me, baby!” to my partner, I’m recapitulating patriarchy.
no matter what I do with the rest of my day. no matter what my partner does with the rest of hir day. no matter if I never take a picture of it, or talk about it with anyone. even if I keep it a secret and take it to my grave.
good thing you don’t care what I do with my sexual free time…
if a hand smacks my naked butt in the middle of the forest and nobody is around to hear it, is patriarchy recapitulated?
February 17, 2009 at 10:07 PM
If only it were that simple, AP.
February 17, 2009 at 10:09 PM
James – The question isn’t what would happen if two kinky people defied their urges, the question is why are the urges there and should they be.
February 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM
The question isn’t what would happen if two kinky people defied their urges, the question is why are the urges there and should they be.
I imagine that part of the reason the urges are there is because sexual repression exists, that which is designed to eliminate all but the most narrowly-defined “appropriate” sexual expression. but desire is not eliminated – it’s just squooshed into asymmetrical shapes.
mind you, I’m no scholar, as should be obvious, but I feel that the presence of unusual (kinky, “pervy”) sexual behavior is part of the legacy of body shame we’ve all inherited from the early days of the industrial revolution and probably before.
whether those urges should or shouldn’t be there is, to me, one of those irrelevant questions. gotta deal with the reality on the ground.
is sexual repression a function of patriarchy?
February 17, 2009 at 10:22 PM
If only it were that simple, AP.
as I said, I’m no scholar. what am I missing?
February 17, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Trinity: Ok then. Clearly 2nd Wavers were deficient in racial stuff as well as the issues I highlighted.
ND: Ah, “Should”. This is the crunch of things, I think.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that they’re acting out commentary on their culture. But regardless of the source the presence is unquestionable. It doesn’t matter what the origin is, the feeling is immutable. It’s not “the wiring” so much as the surroundings, but for those feeling it now it’s something they’re left with, irreparably so far as I can tell. But that’s just how things are, it isn’t any different to how anybody else feels. Unless we’re going to start sprouting the “Natural Law” type nonsense I’d expect from Catholic Church, which I really wouldn’t advise.
Accordingly I can’t see how whether they “Should” or “Should Not” feeling anything is relevant next to the fact that they already do. If you believe that they might not feel as they already do then by all means do your best to shape society in your ideal image as best you can, to save future generations. Strike at the source. But I don’t really see how you’re doing any good at all attacking a group already ridiculed so thoroughly and prejudiced against by so many.
February 17, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Sexual repression has generally been an element of patriarchy, especially when it comes to women’s sexuality. I think you’re onto something when you say that sexual repression warps sexuality. I agree with that 100%, and I suppose my goal is to eradicate the warped-ness and the repression and see if we can’t find something more healthy to do. I know we live in the world we live in and we make do with what we have, but I think striving for something better is always worth doing.
February 17, 2009 at 10:29 PM
BTW – I may hope that we can develop a more healthy way to deal with human sexuality, but that is a far cry from arguing for one kind of appropriate sexuality (which is usually a synonym for male-centered and in line with religious bullshit).
February 17, 2009 at 10:40 PM
FAO Trin: This article suggests that the two issues we raised might not be so differentiated as you suggest.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_5010445
In specific this: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_v19/ai_5010445/pg_5?tag=content;col1
MacKinnon then dismissed the legal reasoningof Hunter and other opponents of the anti-porn legislation. “Why don’t women lawyers act as though they give a damn?’ she demanded angrily. “Why are women lawyers who identify as feminists trying to make sure that women are not going to matter?’ Most of the audience cheered. MacKinnon derided Hunter as “speaking for the pornographers’ and masquerading as a feminist. There was a thunder of approval. More than 20 women then trooped to the podium to call out their differences to the still-riveted crowd. At one point, a black woman law student and a white incest victim confronted each other. “If one iota of the intensity of this debate had gone into outlawing poverty in this society, maybe we’d be getting somewhere,’ said the law student. “To put these [anti-porn] laws on the books is such a diversion away from bread and justice and real empowerment.’
“If women and minorities are really empoweredin our society, you will see a change, you will not see pornography,’ she continued. “But, no, you want to attack a goddamn symptom! Where are we going here? This is dividing a community. I couldn’t go anywhere else today because finally I was sucked into this debate.’
“Is it not worth it?’ demanded the incest victim,who was now crying.
“No, it is not worth it!’ the student yelled.”Hundreds of thousands of people are dying!’
“And 100,000 missing children are taken off thestreets for the use of sex and to be photographed!’ cried the incest victim.
“You give women the power they need and thatwon’t happen,’ the law student shouted back. “You give women the support they need for raising their children and that won’t happen!’
Idk how widespread that sort of thing was, that’s only one instance, but it’s interesting as fuck.
February 17, 2009 at 11:13 PM
James: Yeah, that’s the kind of thing I’m talking about.
Audre Lorde’s letter to Mary Daly, also, I see as part of the same thing… and easy to find.
February 17, 2009 at 11:30 PM
Sexual repression has generally been an element of patriarchy, especially when it comes to women’s sexuality. I think you’re onto something when you say that sexual repression warps sexuality. I agree with that 100%, and I suppose my goal is to eradicate the warped-ness and the repression and see if we can’t find something more healthy to do. I know we live in the world we live in and we make do with what we have, but I think striving for something better is always worth doing.
well, not to get all PHMT, but sexual repression I think has proven just as harmful for men as for women. I don’t think men, specifically, are born with an innate urge to harm their partners any more than I think women, specifically, are born with an innate urge to be harmed.
but then again I don’t think that being kinky (even extremely kinky) has anything necessarily to do with being harmed or being harmful.
I think that we’re born with urges. I think those urges may vary in intensity or direction as an innate thing, but I also think they’re shaped by years of cultural baggage that we don’t even remember why we all carry.
I have more to say, sorry for the incomplete thought, but the Littlest Patriarch is hungry, or wet, or bored, or something…
February 17, 2009 at 11:44 PM
“1) The women employed there, and ALL the employees there, are doing something they want to do.”
You have no possible way of knowing that.
February 18, 2009 at 12:02 AM
“I think you’re onto something when you say that sexual repression warps sexuality. I agree with that 100%, and I suppose my goal is to eradicate the warped-ness and the repression and see if we can’t find something more healthy to do.”
But here’s the thing, right. I’ve had BDSM and other fetishistic urges since before I had sexuality. I was having fantasies of disembodiment, or being kept as a pet, since I was about 5 years old, at least 7 years before my sexuality existed (and these weren’t scary fantasies – they were quite pleasant, I recall). My boyfriend reports much the same thing – his childhood fantasies were often about being the knight in shining armour taking the girl to his castle to be tortured because he loved her, or being the big boss of an underground criminal organisation. He was having these fantasies since at least 5-6, at least 4-5 years before his puberty started.
If fetishistic and BDSM fantasies come from warped sexuality, this would not seem to explain these sorts of childhood fantasy – fantasy that occurs long before a child even remotely understands sexuality. It seems to me that there’s something more fundamental than sexuality at play here, something that might not necessarily be connected to social constructions of sexuality, but might well contain a biological component (like much of sexual desire)
February 18, 2009 at 12:06 AM
To renegadeEvolution:
The website in question was kink.com. Therefore, I addressed kink.com’s employement policies, which, if anyone is interested, can be found at:
If you scroll down to business practices and read what it says….Hell, if I was 10 years younger, I’d quit my job and go apply! LOL! Why NOT make money at something you enjoy and get decent health benefits?
Furthermore, if you want to go research what models get paid elsewhere, have at it, but, ND made it site specific, so, my responses are geared towards her initial topic.
February 18, 2009 at 12:09 AM
“I want to know where, exactly, the massive overpowering war cry of BDSM (the act) is SOO feminist is coming from. ”
Then what exactly is being said? From what I can tell, it’s being argued that BDSM might not be feminist, but the choice to engage in it is. But by that logic we’d have to argue that Sarah Palin is a feminist. After all, it’s her choice to argue that women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion. And what about women who choose to stay with their abusers because they think they love them? Men who really do rape and beat them without consent. Are they engaging in a feminist act by choosing to stay with an abuser?
I sure as hell hope not.
February 18, 2009 at 12:13 AM
“if a hand smacks my naked butt in the middle of the forest and nobody is around to hear it, is patriarchy recapitulated?”
Nice. :)
That put a smile on my face.
February 18, 2009 at 12:29 AM
To renegadeEvolution, again:
My apologies for not putting these together, but, I’m trying to keep all the different thoughts seperate. You made an excellent point, about women who are sexually submissive not being submissive in other aspects of life and the inherent fallacy contained therein.
I’ll go one further. There are women, like myself, who are sexually and privately submissive to ONE person, and that ONE person is someone that they’ve been freinds with, and developed a relationship with, and that they trust. Any dominant who has tried to boss me around finds out, very quickly, the error of that sort of thinking.
I’ll be perfectly honest here…I don’t identify, solely, as a submissive. I identify as a slave, but ONLY with one person, and one person ONLY!
Having said that, I am a professional dancer, semi-retired, dabbling in a bit of psychology, before going to college for psychology, who has PTSD, and has learned to deal and cope with it, who HAS disassociated (and to those who think that disassociation and subspace are the same? You are wrong. They are similar, but not the “same”) and who helps abused women.
I’ve taught in inner city public schools. I’ve been a vice president for a dance company board. I’ve fought off a would be attacker in a Chicago alley. You do NOT want to cross me professionally, or on any business level. I’ve negotiated theater contracts, and I take no prisoners. Hell, I’ve gotten the gas company to give me a refund when they didn’t want to and had made a mistake. I’ll drop my own f-bomb….and you don’t want to fuck with me, period, end of story, professionally, or in a business setting. I’ll cut your balls off or ovaries out and feed them to you with a nice chianti and some fava beans, if you cross me. *grin*
I believe that I know what is best for me, in terms of my sexuality. I believe that other women also know what is best for themselves, in terms of sexuality AND in terms of their employment. I do NOT believe that it is up to me to tell other adult, consenting women, what they can do, who they can do it with, and what they “should” be doing, so that they are then in accordance with MY views, MY values, MY morals, and MY wishes. No one died and left me as God/dess, and I still think it is the height of arrogance to tell other women what their sexuality, and how they view themeselves, sexually *SHOULD* or *OUGHT* to be, OR what they can do with their body. Those two words, “should & ought” allow rationalization of meddling in others’ lives, when the very thing that is being railed against is an over bearing patriarchal society.
Someone explain to me, as if i was 5, why it’s ok for other women to boss each other around, make moral value judgments for other women, and take away our rights, but, somehow, if it’s coming from a male, it’s suddenly wrong? Color ME confused….massively! It’s wrong either way. If you’re advocating taking away women’s rights, you are on the wrong side of the argument, including the right to self determine who she’ll work for.
All any of us have the right to do, is to self determine, as best we can. We rail against, at least I do, the commercial media for failing to present a wide variety of body types, but then we sit back and watch the same shows, over and over again, buy products sold by ultra-thin models, yet, think that we somehow have the upper moral ground because we can talk the talk?
….fascinating, truly fascinating……
February 18, 2009 at 1:11 AM
Bella – Did you actually think I’d allow a link to Kink.com? Come on.
February 18, 2009 at 1:12 AM
Lee – What, do we live in vacuums until we develop sexual feelings? Sexuality exists before puberty, and socialization exists from birth.
February 18, 2009 at 1:13 AM
AP – It isn’t as harmful to men as it is to women. It conditions them to rape, which makes us, not them, the victims.
February 18, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Nine Deuce said, “I remain absolutely unconvinced that BDSM can be practiced in a way that leaves patriarchy aside (I feel the same way about all sex, so I’ll not hear another fucking word about BDSM vs. “vanilla” sex).”
Um, okay. When I read this, please correct me if I’m wrong, I take it to mean that you’re against ALL sex? This is a serious question, not a bullshit poke at you. I’d like to try to understand your point of view.
In your version of the world, what kind of sex IS okay? (It’s a legitimate question.)
Nine Deuce also wrote, “I simply do not believe that these people telling me how feminist it is that they have the choice to be excited by fetishizing and eroticizing oppression have escaped the cultural messages that even I, a radical feminist (as labeled by others), haven’t been able to analyze my way out of completely. I’m not urging banning anything, I’m not telling anyone to be ashamed, but I am saying that our goal ought to be a world in which women are truly sexually autonomous beings. That means making choices with regard to sex from a set of options that aren’t limited by patriarchal social conditioning. We’ve lost the fucking plot here, clearly.”
Again, I’m confused. On the one hand, you’re saying that I shouldn’t be ashamed and I should have a choice, but that my choice is wrong…why? What other options are there? I mean, I think humanity has pretty much covered all the basics in the ten-thousand-plus years of civilization, right? From matriarchal to patriarchal and every combo in between.
And seriously, no smart-ass intended here, because frankly I’m at a loss to understand where you’re coming from. My choices aren’t limited. (They were when I was with my ex husband, that’s for freaking sure.)
I wasn’t “conditioned” into my choices. If anything, I overcame my “conditioning.” If it was up to my mother, I’d be a good church-going girl who didn’t swear, never got divorced, kept her mouth shut, etc. etc.
By me NOT practicing my own personal, private kink with my husband in the privacy of my own home, how does that help or hinder in any way, shape, or form the plight of other women in the world? How does what any adults do behind closed doors, if they are all consenting, impact positively or negatively the plight of women in the world overall? Again, I feel that’s a legitimate question.
And frankly, I’m anything but oppressed in my house. My house is run by Me. My husband submits to Me.
If you’re against all sex because of the patriarchy of it, again I ask, what in your point of view (I’m trying to have a legitimate conversation with you here) is considered “okay?” If we all stopped having sex, is that okay?
The world isn’t made up of absolutes. What works for someone won’t work for another. I would never have the kind of relationship I have with my husband with my ex or anyone else for a number of reasons. Is my husband “brainwashed” because HE approached ME and asked for ME to take the dominant role in our relationship? Does that make me a bad person in your eyes for doing what we do?
I know you’re saying you don’t want to deal with specific individual anecdotes, but that’s what the world is comprised of, a series of anecdotes that all blend together to form the fabric of humankind. We aren’t a homogenous world where one-size-fits-all, or even fits most.
I wouldn’t want to live in that kind of world anyway.
So I’d like to backtrack the conversation and find out what IS okay, and not in vague socio-political jargon either. In real, plain English, what, in your point of view, is “okay?” Is no sex for anyone okay? Is sex okay only under a certain set of circumstances?
Is it okay for a woman to pick a guy she likes and have sex with him if she chooses if he totally keeps his mouth shut and offers no opinion in the matter? Women with women only? (sorry, I’m not doing THAT, I don’t swing that way) I mean, I am trying to understand your point of view, but so far I…just can’t.
If, in your point of view, no type of sex is okay because it’s overshadowed by patriarchy (this is the meaning that I am taking from what you’ve said, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, I’m simply saying that this is the impression you’ve left me with) then basically doesn’t that mean you’d be against any point of view on sex that doesn’t agree with yours — no matter how valid it is — simply because you refute the basis of the argument to begin with?
I…I just don’t understand where you’re coming from, I suppose. I pride myself as a rational, reasoning person. I’m college educated. I’m a writer. I love a good debate. But somehow, I feel there’s something I’m missing in this picture.
I can understand if you don’t like what goes on on Kink.com, fine, I get that. I can understand if you don’t agree with BDSM for whatever reasons, fine, okay. I can see points in your argument where I see what you’re against.
But what are you for? I’m not talking some sweeping vision, either. I mean, brass tacks here, help me see your point of view of what you ARE for in this argument and why? What I read from your words is you’ve got some concept of all women in general not having a choice because men make the rules. (Again, I’m NOT putting words in your mouth, I’m telling you that’s the impression I come away with after reading your words.)
So if personal anecdotal evidence isn’t acceptable proof that a sweeping, absolute viewpoint is wrong, then what kind of evidence/change do you require to open your mind to considering other valid realities for people other than whatever it is you feel it should be?
February 18, 2009 at 1:27 AM
“If fetishistic and BDSM fantasies come from warped sexuality, this would not seem to explain these sorts of childhood fantasy – fantasy that occurs long before a child even remotely understands sexuality.”
Actually there is an explanation for that…but it requires a belief in reincarnation.
February 18, 2009 at 1:49 AM
AP – It isn’t as harmful to men as it is to women. It conditions them to rape, which makes us, not them, the victims.
do you think that’s the only thing that societal sexual repression does to men?
do you think that societal sexual repression does that only to men?
or is that which differs from your thesis statistically insignificant and therefore irrelevant?
because I don’t know that I agree with that. (but my reasoning behind my opinion includes a collection of them there irrelevant personal anecdotes nobody wants to hear.)
as far as early childhood fantasies of high drama and peril and so forth, and those being woven into one’s sexual tapestry – I think it’s a sort of combination of nature and nurture. which I didn’t really make clear in my previous comment. I certainly had ‘em.
I also wanted to say that I feel like one really can’t separate the condemnation of BDSM practice from the condemnation of BDSM-practicing people, and that trying to un-warp the already warped (for whatever reason), or trying to convince us to un-warp ourselves for the good of womanity (whether overtly, covertly or sarcastically) is a waste of time. it’s attacking a symptom, not a root cause.
And I wonder: is the entire vast and powerful universe of womanhood, in its great and glorious fertile existence, somehow threatened with utter destruction because I like a spanking now and then?
@faith – as always, I live to, er, serve… ;)
February 18, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Just wondered, what was the point of this?
I would not judge you based on your sex, but it is ok to judge me on my sexual orientation.
The founding principles of BDSM is safe, sane, and Consensual. You use words like rape, abuse, and torture, you do actual know what they mean?
One of the things you seem to have missed is that the most respected people, in the BDSM world, are mostly female, and many are submissive as well.
February 18, 2009 at 2:00 AM
Bella:
Kink’s employees receive benefits. As in, programmers, designers, so on. MODELS are considered independent contractors, not employees, and do no get things such as health insurance. I said nothing about the pay rates- which are fairly standard. Porn performer 101- you are not an employee, you are an independent contractor. If Kink DID give their models benefits like insurance, they would most certainly publicize it boldly because they would truly be trailblazers.
Faith:
A women expressing the fact that she even HAS any sexual desire AT ALL can be construed as feminist…because the thought that women could not or should not have such things, much less, gads, express them, has been a key point o’ patriarchy. The acts she engages in? No, not all acts in various contexts are feminist. A woman saying “hey, check it, I have a damn sex drive?” Oh, I do think that just might be. Do you feel otherwise?
February 18, 2009 at 2:04 AM
“Then what exactly is being said? From what I can tell, it’s being argued that BDSM might not be feminist, but the choice to engage in it is. But by that logic we’d have to argue that Sarah Palin is a feminist.”
Wait… let me get this straight:
You think that us saying “Look, patriarchy has conditioned women to look for outside approval of their sexuality and to try to mold it to some authority’s standard. Given that we know how destructive this has been for women, let’s not, as feminists, create a new Standard and hold women to it.”
is the same as us saying
“Sarah Palin chooses to be a clueless antifeminist moron. How feminist!”
?
You’re very intelligent and thoughtful, Faith. Surely you can debate with us without reducing what we say to so ridiculous a strawwoman.
February 18, 2009 at 2:06 AM
No, I’m not against all sex, but I am for scrutinizing all forms of sex and for trying to shrug off the conditioning that a misogynistic society has tried to impose on us. That means decoupling sex and male supremacy. I am for women creating their own sexuality rather than allowing men to do it for us. I’m going to write a post on this soon, but I’m busy.
February 18, 2009 at 2:15 AM
“Um, okay. When I read this, please correct me if I’m wrong, I take it to mean that you’re against ALL sex? This is a serious question, not a bullshit poke at you. I’d like to try to understand your point of view.
In your version of the world, what kind of sex IS okay? (It’s a legitimate question.)”
TD,
I’m the wrong person to answer that, but in case ND is tired of explaining:
Radical feminist theory about sexuality tends to argue that the sexualities of everyone in society have been shaped by living in an unjust society that privileges some groups over others. (The one we’re most talking about here is men over women, but there’s also such dynamics as heterosexual over queer, white over people of color, etc.)
Since men have traditionally made the rules, they have structured society in ways that serve their sexual desires. To cite just one example, while in much of nature, male animals have shiny, fancy markings or plumage to attract females, in human society women are expected to paint and groom themselves and even perhaps modify their bodies (makeup, “sexy” clothes, plastic surgery, etc.) to be appealing to men.
All of this, according to the radical feminist theory, gets internalized. So a woman may absolutely love her high heels even when she’s got chronic foot pain… without realizing (says the theory) that the real reason she loves her heels is because society has impressed upon her that a woman who wears them is sexy/beautiful/good.
With respect to sexuality, then, the idea is that our society expects a kind of male dominance and female submission. Women are supposed to be the pretty and the pursued, and the ones who are conquered or claimed in sex; men are supposed to be masterful and seductive. And this is just vanilla!
M/f BDSM, on this view, is an exaggerated version of the same thing. It’s still got the swoony surrender and the masterful manliness, only now it’s got actual pain, real bondage, real “I’m yours/she’s mine,” etc. It’s an exaggeration for greater intensity of something that’s already deeply ingrained in the culture.
Now, as I’ve said, I don’t agree with this view, for reasons I’ve already enumerated many times already. However, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect you to understand the basics of how the view works.
As a dominant woman though, I will say that I *do* get the strong sense that men who don’t know me *do* often free-floatingly expect me or other women who like men to do the swoony-fainting-flower thingy. It’s a common assumption that this is what women’s desire for men is *about*, and I do think *that* is cultural.
February 18, 2009 at 2:36 AM
I am for women creating their own sexuality rather than allowing men to do it for us.
what makes you think I haven’t done this?
and what makes you think that if I (some crazy irrelevant statistical outlier) have done this, other women can’t or don’t?
pardon my bold, but this is really the heart of the matter for me. after so many years of going round and round the mulberry bush, we’ve finally caught that damn weasel. (for me. and I’m so grateful to finally have the opportunity to discuss it. so please, pardon my obviously inappropriate enthusiasm.)
February 18, 2009 at 2:39 AM
“Surely you can debate with us without reducing what we say to so ridiculous a strawwoman.”
I fail to see how what I asked was a “strawwoman”. Ren seems to have gotten what I was attempting to ask.
Let me try something a bit more clearer:
How is a woman making a choice that is not feminist a feminist act? How can there be any logic in that?
February 18, 2009 at 2:46 AM
“A women expressing the fact that she even HAS any sexual desire AT ALL can be construed as feminist…because the thought that women could not or should not have such things, much less, gads, express them, has been a key point o’ patriarchy.”
Yes.
“The acts she engages in? No, not all acts in various contexts are feminist. A woman saying “hey, check it, I have a damn sex drive?” Oh, I do think that just might be. Do you feel otherwise?”
Yes, saying that she has a sex drive is a feminist act. But you didn’t answer my question which was quite simply: How is engaging in a act (sexual or otherwise) which is not feminist a feminist act? If BDSM is not feminist, how can choosing it be a feminist act?
How can engaging in non-feminist sexual acts be feminist?
There doesn’t appear to be any logic there.
It just seems to be that there is such a desperate need to come up with a defense – any defense – that some commenters are engaging in some major mental gymnastics.
February 18, 2009 at 2:46 AM
::Slams head into wall::
It is not the choice itself, it is the ability to make a choice, period. I waxed on about this at length elsewhere, but yeah, I am not sure how it is so difficult to say/see/recognize that women having an ability to make a choice, at all, and laying claim to those choices and saying “hey, check it, I dig this!” is not a good, if not perfect feministest of most feminist things.
February 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM
“It is not the choice itself, it is the ability to make a choice, period.”
I’m sorry, Ren. I have difficulty understanding or accepting that making a choice to engage in something which is not feminist can be feminist.
It just doesn’t make any sense to me.
February 18, 2009 at 2:53 AM
Exactly, Faith.
February 18, 2009 at 2:54 AM
AP – Because it’s nearly impossible to do in the current context. I’ve been thinking about it for 15 years and I’m still struggling with figuring it out.
February 18, 2009 at 2:55 AM
“How is a woman making a choice that is not feminist a feminist act? How can there be any logic in that?”
I don’t think it is, personally, and I’ve said myself that I don’t. (Commenters there do disagree and assert that it is, though.) I tend to think “feminist acts” are acts that concretely aid women, bring about rights or freedoms for women, inform people about women’s issues, etc.
What I do think “is feminist” is recognizing the ways that patriarchy sets up a double bind for women in terms of sexuality. That whatever sexuality a woman has, patriarchy condemns it. In my view, the problem is not (say) that all patriarchy allows is female submission; the problem is that it’s impossible for women to get sexuality “right” in a society that sets up, and vigorously enforces, a double standard. No matter what a woman’s sexuality is, she is punished for it, because she is either too sexual or not sexual enough.
As it very often is, patriarchy is self-contradictory in what it demands. This catches women’s sexual lives and vitality in a crushing, soul-destroying vise.
So what I do think is feminist is encouraging women to understand that they live in a society designed to wrench their authentic sexuality away from them through shaming or worse, and encouraging them to trust themselves with regard to sexuality. This doesn’t mean that they will automatically do things that are good for them; many people have sex in self-destructive ways.
It does mean attempting to create an atmosphere where women are encouraged to discover what their feelings are, figure out which desires are important to them, figure out how to set healthy boundaries and explore in healthy ways, etc.
And I do think that much (NOT ALL) of the BDSM scene emphasizes methods and tools (negotiation, carefully discovering and discussing what you really want, safewords, emphasis on enthusiastic rather than passive consent, etc.) that can help women do this. THAT can be feminist.
BDSM itself, however, is no more, OR LESS, feminist than Jello.
IMO, anyway.
February 18, 2009 at 2:57 AM
Faith- and I was just about to question your logic and painfully narrow and rigid thinking on the matter. Funny that. Follow me here:
Women all over the world, past and present, get killed, arrested, shamed, blackmailed, emotionally destroyed, ruined and shunned for being sexual AT ALL. I hope I do not have to prove that to you.
Women standing up to that shit and saying no, I will not take this crap any more, I am a sexual being with sexual feelings who does not deserve to be killed, arrested, shamed, blackmailed, emotionally destroyed, ruined and shunned for that….
feminist or not, you tell me, since I seem to have it all wrong, all the goddamn time.
Simple question, really.
February 18, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Yes, saying that she has a sex drive is a feminist act. But you didn’t answer my question which was quite simply: How is engaging in a act (sexual or otherwise) which is not feminist a feminist act? If BDSM is not feminist, how can choosing it be a feminist act?
How can engaging in non-feminist sexual acts be feminist?
again, the heart of the matter for me.
I believe that any consensual sexual activity a woman desires is feminist enough.
there is no non-feminist sexual activity if it is desired by a woman.
so, for me, BDSM as consensually practiced is feminist enough. so is any other sexual activity you can name, pretty much. (now, that’s just one uninformed, uneducated opinion. but it’s mine.)
but, see, here’s where it all comes off the rails for me:
some say that no sexual act is feminist. in fact, no choice a woman makes in this world is uninfected by patriarchy, and so no choice is truly feminist.
so, how many not-feminist acts is one allowed before she has to stop calling calling herself a feminist?
how many clinic defenses, rape awareness seminars, marches, classes, etc. does one need to balance out that one damn spanking, or even more “normal” sexual activity?
February 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM
“I’m sorry, Ren. I have difficulty understanding or accepting that making a choice to engage in something which is not feminist can be feminist.”
But winning the ability to make the choice, or being trusted with the ability to make the choice can be.
It was feminist for women to gain the vote, even if some of them voted against their own interests. Which I don’t doubt some did; some do to this day. (Witness the whole “Palin is awesome, because I’m a feminist” nonsense in some Internet enclaves.)
February 18, 2009 at 3:00 AM
“No, I’m not against all sex, but I am for scrutinizing all forms of sex and for trying to shrug off the conditioning that a misogynistic society has tried to impose on us. That means decoupling sex and male supremacy. I am for women creating their own sexuality rather than allowing men to do it for us. I’m going to write a post on this soon, but I’m busy.”
It has been stated quite clearly, in plain English, many times over, that a large number of us haven’t bought into the societal conditioning you’re talking about. SO, if that societal conditioning doesn’t exist in OUR minds how are we not creating our own sexuality, owning it, and embracing it? Could you explain that to me?
I’m quite curious to see how you rationalize this.
Joy
February 18, 2009 at 3:02 AM
AP – Because it’s nearly impossible to do in the current context. I’ve been thinking about it for 15 years and I’m still struggling with figuring it out.
so………..what man (or conspiracy of men?) created my sexuality?
find him. name him.
was it my dad, telling me to stay away from boys because he didn’t want a slut for a daughter? was it the boys who thought I was too weird to date anyway and avoided me like the plague?
who was it? let’s get him.
and then what?
February 18, 2009 at 3:06 AM
You two are pretty impressive if you’ve managed to escape the kind of conditioning that everyone else in the world faces.
February 18, 2009 at 3:09 AM
it’s not just the two of us, I’m saying.
how many statistical outliers have to get together and say “hey, we’re over here!” before we figure into the theory?
February 18, 2009 at 3:12 AM
and then again, too, a lot of my sexuality was shaped by women. at least, that’s where I sought out a lot of early sexual experiences. not all of it went the way I would have liked, for a lot of reasons. were the negative experiences a result of patriarchal conditioning?
(but, you know, personal anecdote, not data.)
February 18, 2009 at 3:14 AM
“You two are pretty impressive if you’ve managed to escape the kind of conditioning that everyone else in the world faces.”
Why is it that you make it sound like it’s something impossible to do? Why is it you seem to believe we’re a minority when we’re not? Unless you’re a sheeple there’s no reason why you can’t opt out of societal conditioning. Even sheeple have the choice, they’re just happier grazing and going with the herd.
Joy
February 18, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Let me ask you this, ND…..so, is EVERYONE in the world conditioned the same way? That seems to be the gist of what you are saying, over and over again, that all countries, on all continents are influenced and conditioned by a patriarchal society. Do i have that right?
February 18, 2009 at 3:22 AM
That’s way too simplistic. And I’ll speak for myself, thanks.
February 18, 2009 at 3:23 AM
“Women all over the world, past and present, get killed, arrested, shamed, blackmailed, emotionally destroyed, ruined and shunned for being sexual AT ALL. I hope I do not have to prove that to you.”
Agreed.
“Women standing up to that shit and saying no, I will not take this crap any more, I am a sexual being with sexual feelings who does not deserve to be killed, arrested, shamed, blackmailed, emotionally destroyed, ruined and shunned for that….”
Agreed.
“feminist or not, you tell me, since I seem to have it all wrong, all the goddamn time.”
Yes this is feminist (as far as I’m concerned). You still haven’t answered my question, however.
February 18, 2009 at 3:26 AM
“It does mean attempting to create an atmosphere where women are encouraged to discover what their feelings are, figure out which desires are important to them, figure out how to set healthy boundaries and explore in healthy ways, etc.”
But if they do explore their sexuality, or sexuality in general, and decide that certain acts are not feminist…how is it feminist to engage in those acts after declaring that they are not feminist?
February 18, 2009 at 3:32 AM
“But winning the ability to make the choice, or being trusted with the ability to make the choice can be.”
And if the choice is not feminist, but is destructive to the self or otherwise, we’re just supposed to accept it and remain silent? Even if they are hurting themselves or helping to perpetuate a society in which other women are harmed or oppressed?
I don’t think women’s choices are sacrosanct. I think everyone makes bad choices and that those bad choices have consequences. I also happen to believe that any responsible adult will make the effort to not make bad choices.
With the power and ability to make a choice comes the responsibility that goes with the ability to make a choice.
February 18, 2009 at 3:38 AM
“That’s way too simplistic.”
Then please do explain the nuances I’m missing. Nuance is always awesome.
February 18, 2009 at 3:40 AM
Yeah, dude, I will. At some point. I have way too much shit to do to spend all day on here repeating things I’ve written hundreds of times. Should anyone care to know where I stand on this issue, look under my porn tag.
February 18, 2009 at 5:11 AM
“But if they do explore their sexuality, or sexuality in general, and decide that certain acts are not feminist…how is it feminist to engage in those acts after declaring that they are not feminist?”
1) Not feminist doesn’t mean anti-feminist. Brushing my teeth is not feminist. Feminism doesn’t care whether I do it or not.
2) I’m not saying it’s particularly feminist to engage in the acts. I’m saying, as I’ve said repeatedly, that encouraging women not to mistrust themselves is a good thing, and that IF that is, as it often is, a corrective to patriarchal shaming, then that encouragement CAN be feminist.
Why this is turning into me saying the action is feminist I really have no idea. I tend to think truly feminist actions are, you know, activism of some sort, not kinky sex. Or endless pronouncements on what women would want to do in Utopia.
February 18, 2009 at 5:14 AM
“And if the choice is not feminist, but is destructive to the self or otherwise, we’re just supposed to accept it and remain silent?”
No, but I don’t think people’s lives are my business unless they’re close friends. Just hearing “I like to submit” doesn’t mean anything to me. Seeing a friend of mine involve herself in a destructive version of D/s would.
But in terms of saving all humanity from itself? No, that’s just stupid. Part of treating people with respect is giving them the freedom to make mistakes.
“Even if they are hurting themselves”
As I said above, if someone I was close to was using BDSM in a destructive way, I’d try to help them.
“or helping to perpetuate a society in which other women are harmed or oppressed?”
The idea that how people fuck deeply influences society is not something I buy. Perhaps if I did think that held water, I’d be for stopping people.
February 18, 2009 at 5:16 AM
AKA: How the fuck is pointing at people and going: “You, you there! Your choices are not feminist!” any improvement for women in society as a whole? What does it accomplish? I’ve asked this before, and I’m still waiting for an answer.
February 18, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Faith:
That is my answer. Right there. Women declaring themselves as sexual beings is feminist. End game. No more story.
Then again, I do not think any sexual act, in and of itself, holds any politic whatsoever. People add the politics.
Do I think M/f BDSM with all the language and trappings is feminist? Nah. Nor do I really actually care. I don’t think someone claiming the feminist title has to live a 24/7 feminist lifestyle. In a world where women are shamed daily for even having or mentioning sexuality, well, a gal standing up and saying “I have that” is an improvement in my opinion- even if that sexuality entails things other people do not like. The flavor? Well, no matter the flavor she is going to take crap for it…and any flavor, well, it is going to be bad or distaseful to other women. Nature of the beast.
Now, perhaps one day in the glorious and egalitarian future, no women will want to be into BDSM (I doubt it, but it could happen). In the mean time, when doing so can affect them so adversely, I think any time a woman stands up and claims to have any sexuality at all, whatever it is, well, that’s a step up from it being assumed we don’t have any at all, and why yes, can be good for women.
Because you know, for every single woman out there who says OMG, BDSM is so terrible and look what it does to the rest of us! There is some other woman who says thank you for speaking out on this, I feel that way too, but was afraid to say it.
And guess what, in my head, one of those women is not of more import than the other.
Oh, and Trinity’s comment there at 5:16? Ding ding ding!
February 18, 2009 at 12:13 PM
No, really, to elaborate a bit on Trinity there…
For over three years I’ve had various folk in bloglandia standing around chanting “how you have sex is so not feminist!” (which hey, I never really said it was)…such things have, oh, really changed how I have sex now, haven’t they? They have totally endeared me to radical feminism too, right? They have completely opened up lines of communication and built bridges between women and all that stuff too, eh? Oh yeah, and you know, with some folk, how I fuck does totally negate anything and everything else I may do to actually help other women out.
So to answer what Trinity asks up there? It accomplishes nothing. And I bet you dollars to donuts other kinky women would tell you the same thing or share a common experience/feeling with me here on this one.
Seriously, do you expect all the kinky women out there to reform or change their sexual tastes to suit…well, what radical feminists say sex should be? For real? Would that make y’all happy? Chances are, it would make the majority of the kinky women pretty miserable, and that would serve what purpose, exactly?
February 18, 2009 at 1:47 PM
“Part of treating people with respect is giving them the freedom to make mistakes.”
You mean what you happen to think is a mistake, but otherwise I agree.
February 18, 2009 at 2:12 PM
“How the fuck is pointing at people and going: “You, you there! Your choices are not feminist!” any improvement for women in society as a whole? What does it accomplish? I’ve asked this before, and I’m still waiting for an answer.”
Trinity,
Right now the argument is being made by Pro-Sm women that SM is not necessarily feminist. You are correct that brushing your teeth is not a feminist act. However, sexuality is a huge part of feminism.
So, explain to me what SM is if it is not feminist. And if you believe that how people fuck does not have any real influence on society, why are these conversations so important to you? Why waste your time on something that you do not view as having much meaning? Because I keep seeing you say in one way or another that you don’t think it has any real impact, yet you spend a great heaping amount of time discussing something that you claim to not see as particularly relevant to the conversation (the conversation being feminism).
February 18, 2009 at 2:19 PM
“That is my answer. Right there. Women declaring themselves as sexual beings is feminist. End game. No more story.”
I agree that women declaring themselves sexual beings is feminist. But desire is different from action. Simply because we have certain sexual desires does not mean that we should act upon them. This is where I’m having the difficulty.
Acknowledging desire = feminist. Completely totally agree. I still don’t understand the logic in actually engaging in activity that is not feminist.
“So to answer what Trinity asks up there? It accomplishes nothing. And I bet you dollars to donuts other kinky women would tell you the same thing or share a common experience/feeling with me here on this one.”
Being one of those damn kinky women (of the mostly submissive variety no less), I can say that I do not find the radical feminist analysis of BDSM offensive. And yep, I have found it helpful in learning to understand and accept myself.
February 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM
“And if you believe that how people fuck does not have any real influence on society, why are these conversations so important to you? ”
Good question. And why do you need validation from radical feminists? Why do you care what we think?
February 18, 2009 at 3:16 PM
And why do you need validation from radical feminists? Why do you care what we think?
because we work with you. we do clinic defense with you. we picket with you. we take back nights with you. we put up posters with you, distribute flyers with you, plan events with you, discuss issues with you, contribute to causes with you -
we, er, walk among you. and it’s impossible to swallow the constant mocking, derision, and snotty sarcasm without speaking up once in a while and saying “hey, you know, I’m standing right here, next to you, holding this end of the banner.”
how can we work with you knowing you think we’re dangerously weird/monstrous/collaborating with Patriarchy?
and we want to work with you, despite what you might think.
that’s why we give a shit.
February 18, 2009 at 5:52 PM
AP, you get a standing ovation for your comments about us other feminists walking amongst radical feminists.
I’m one who has marched, helped women access abortion clinics, simply to get medical care OR to get an abortion, if that was their choice. When I was in elementary school, I saved my allowances for months and sent it into one of the groups working to pass the ERA. (For those of you not born in the early 60′s, google it.) I am called “radical” by my freinds, because of my beliefs in women’s rights and my work for women, and I find it amusing, when it is not outright offensive, to hear other women screaming that it’s more than Ok for them to make the choices that THEY want in their lives, but, God forBID that I be granted that same respect they are demanding from me. ;-)
I married an emotionally and psychologically abusive man because of being “shoulded” into doing it by well meaning relatives. They thought that I SHOULD marry him, because he would give me the freedom to work as much as I wanted to. Yah, riiight. I’ve got your freedom right here, and it’s going to cost you 2 decades of passive aggressive behavior, psychological abuse, being sexually unfulfilled and sexually unsatisfied, and then? When you want out, finally? It’s going to cost you more. I’ve had it up to my leather collar with folks using “should”. *grin*
Live and lete live, and I’ll grant you the same respect and choices. None of us who are involved in D/s or M/s relationships are telling YOU, the radical feminists, that you MUST do what we do, yet, y’all feel mighty free to tell us what we “should” or “should not” do. It’s the same dichotomy that is between the pro-choice and anti-choice sides in the abortion debate, and it’s the same dichotomy between the pro-same sex marriage and the anti-same sex marriage sides as well. Those who are pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage are simply requesting that women and other consenting adults be granted the freedoms to choose how to live their lives. They are NOT saying that all women must get abortions and all couples must be same sex couples, yet, the argument is that the choices made for abortion or same sex marriage are somehow affecting those who don’t get abortions or are heterosexual. Hogwash! Pure, unadulterated hogwash. We, who engage in kink, are NOT advocating that everyone engage in it with us. Hell, we don’t WANT you in our scene if you are this much against us, as the negative energy is very destructive, yet, you want to take away our ability to express ourselves in a way that is mutually satisfying, sexually. Someone care to tell me who died and left radical feminists in charge of who I am and how I express myself sexually, cause, I certainly don’t remember giving anyone that power. ;-)
February 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM
“So, explain to me what SM is if it is not feminist.”
A sexual preference and/or orientation. Orientation, in my case.
“And if you believe that how people fuck does not have any real influence on society, why are these conversations so important to you?”
Because I feel that people deserve better than to be derided for their orientation? (I’m surprised as hell that people consider this weird.)
“Why waste your time on something that you do not view as having much meaning? Because I keep seeing you say in one way or another that you don’t think it has any real impact, yet you spend a great heaping amount of time discussing something that you claim to not see as particularly relevant to the conversation (the conversation being feminism).”
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my comment, but as I said on SM-F when Part 4 of ND’s series went up: I had no interest in getting involved. I don’t really care any more what people who rely on faulty logic from thirty years ago do and think.
However, because people who read SM-F expected me to challenge Part 4, and asked me repeatedly to comment, I posted.
Then I responded to the hateful and vile suggestion that I — or at least, several of my close friends — should kill myself for being a top.
There you have it: why I care.
Really, if I’d posted to my blog something vile like “radical feminists should kill themselves because they don’t appear capable of original thought,” wouldn’t you think a few might show up to call me out on it?
Even people who usually assert that they “don’t care about the sex-pozzies”, etc?
What if their friends were telling them “hey, this is bothering me… would you say something?” Would you consider such a person hypocritical for responding then?
And also, as I’ve said many times before, if this BDSM debate is over and no one cares, why is it that every few months, like clockwork, some radical feminist who doesn’t even do BDSM feels an intense need to pronounce on it?
Why are YOU all so obsessed with us?
February 18, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Faith: Well, as has been said sooo many times before, you are one woman now, aren’t you? It is all well and good that you find the analysis interesting and helpful. Have you stopped engaging in submissive behavior yet and other unfeminist sexual activities? Do you want to/plan to?
So there is you, as opposed to every other kinky woman who has participated on any of these threads. It would seem you are the miniority.
And sure enough, I do not particularly care how people fuck so long as they are doing it legally. However, it sure as hell annoys the crap out of me when people decide they know what is best for others, put things under universal umbrellas, blame things like rape and murder on kinky people who, oh, never raped or murdered anyone, and figure one form of repression is better than another and a shit ton of assumption and drive by psychology. There has also been a lot of disrespect shown to kinky women commenting here (not by you, you as always are very polite), and that I find…ironic.
February 18, 2009 at 7:03 PM
“So there is you, as opposed to every other kinky woman who has participated on any of these threads. It would seem you are the miniority.”
And… even if that is true (I don’t want to put words in Faith’s mouth but I seem to remember that she actually said it is, back a ways), how does that being a positive step for her necessarily make it a positive step for everyone else?
I’m too lazy to russell it up now, but there’s a passage in Herman’s _Trauma and Recovery_ wherein a woman describes realizing that her SM fantasies are harmful and negative, and replacing them with imagining waterfalls.
Okay. I have no problem with that.
But thinking myself about what’s been positive and negative for me, I find that the idea that sexuality is something that magically arises from other people harming you to be a concept that isn’t useful to me. One that, in fact, has actually done harm to me as I heal.
Why is her story the story of a successful survivor, and mine the story of a stuck one? Why is there one and only one trauma narrative that gets approval?
February 18, 2009 at 8:04 PM
“Why are YOU all so obsessed with us?”
I can’t say that I am obsessed with “you” or any one else into BDSM, personally.
“I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed my comment, but as I said on SM-F when Part 4 of ND’s series went up: I had no interest in getting involved. I don’t really care any more what people who rely on faulty logic from thirty years ago do and think.”
Yes, I missed the comment. But I was not only referring to this thread or this blog. 9 times out of 10 (or at least it seems) if I see you involved in a thread it’s either about BDSM or sex work. I’d be hesitant to state that the people you disagree with are relying on “faulty logic”, regardless of when that “faulty logic” originated.
And you know what? I really don’t like MRA’s. I really don’t give a good goddamn what they think..which is precisely why I pay no attention to them whatsoever despite the fact that they do nothing but constantly deride women.
“Really, if I’d posted to my blog something vile like “radical feminists should kill themselves because they don’t appear capable of original thought,” wouldn’t you think a few might show up to call me out on it?…What if their friends were telling them “hey, this is bothering me… would you say something?” Would you consider such a person hypocritical for responding then?”
I don’t care much for the behavior and attitudes of certain radical feminists. But I also do not care for the behavior and attitudes of many sitting on the other side of the fence. I have said it before and I’ll say it again: There is piss poor behavior and attitude from both “sides”. Unless the piss poor behavior is just completely absolutely atrocious, I just do my best to ignore it. I don’t have all day to police the behavior of other women, nor is it my job to do so. We are all adults here after all. And, I do not believe that the piss poor behavior of certain feminists derides or negates radical feminist theory.
February 18, 2009 at 8:12 PM
“how can we work with you knowing you think we’re dangerously weird/monstrous/collaborating with Patriarchy?”
Ap,
I meant to say this last night and then my melatonin kicked in and I had to go to bed before I fell out of my chair.
For whatever it’s worth…From what I’ve seen of you, I have absolutely no reason to believe that you are a danger to anyone. You seem to be about as dangerous as my 2 year old fluffy ridiculously cute hamster. I also don’t know what you are into in the bedroom, and frankly, I really don’t give a damn. I have no reason to believe that you would ever do anything that you thought would harm anyone else.
I’m more than happy to “hold the other end of the banner” with you.
February 18, 2009 at 8:14 PM
“because we work with you. we do clinic defense with you. we picket with you. we take back nights with you. we put up posters with you, distribute flyers with you, plan events with you, discuss issues with you, contribute to causes with you -”
I fail to see how our critiquing BDSM prevents you from doing any of those things.
February 18, 2009 at 8:22 PM
“Well, as has been said sooo many times before, you are one woman now, aren’t you? It is all well and good that you find the analysis interesting and helpful.”
I haven’t said anything about the whole “one woman” thing. And yes, I do believe it’s all well and good that I find the analysis interesting and helpful. Quite well indeed.
“Have you stopped engaging in submissive behavior yet and other unfeminist sexual activities? ”
Currently, yes. I am human and full of fault though so I make no promises that I never will again.
“So there is you, as opposed to every other kinky woman who has participated on any of these threads. It would seem you are the miniority.”
If you go by these threads, yes. If you go by the number of women who used to be kinky who then became radical feminists, I’m not so sure about me being in the minority. Besides, there are a helluva lot of women out there who aren’t commenting on these threads.
“blame things like rape and murder on kinky people who, oh, never raped or murdered anyone, and figure one form of repression is better than another and a shit ton of assumption and drive by psychology.”
I agree that blaming rape and murder on kinky people (unless the kinky people in question actually are rapists or murders) is completely unacceptable. However, I’m not entirely sure how many feminists women actually are doing that, if any. What I see is feminists women discussing their beliefs that BDSM can help feed into the culture and society which fosters violence against women…and also that it is often a byproduct of that society. This is different from saying “kinky people cause rape and murder”.
“There has also been a lot of disrespect shown to kinky women commenting here (not by you, you as always are very polite), and that I find…ironic.”
There’s been a lot of disrespect shown to a lot of people all over the damn place.
February 18, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Ok, I said: “because we work with you. we do clinic defense with you. we picket with you. we take back nights with you. we put up posters with you, distribute flyers with you, plan events with you, discuss issues with you, contribute to causes with you -”
and then Laurelin said: I fail to see how our critiquing BDSM prevents you from doing any of those things.
let me show you.
stay with me.
let’s say two random feminists, me and some mythical you, meet while participating in the planning of a great big march. We paint some banners, make up some chants, whomp up some flyers, share stories of how we came to a feminist consciousness, all that happy crap.
the part of the march we were responsible for – it goes GREAT. really smoothly. all the stuff we were supposed to get done, we actually do. and everything is AWESOME. and off we march and loudly we chant and we’re all high on that marching energy and at the end, we decide to go for a coffee or something, you and me.
and we have some coffee and do a march post-mortem, and talk about stuff we learned and how we’d do things next time, and that’s all great, and the conversation winds around to, oh, I don’t know, sex or porn or something or other, and you say to me:
“yeah, you know, I like working with you. you’re not one of those weird BDSM people.”
(and don’t tell me this doesn’t happen or wouldn’t happen because it did. to me. several times.)
now, what does this mean to our working relationship? our nascent friendship?
alternately, let’s say I have a blog where I talk about feminist stuff. and lots of folks agree with me, and we have big long comment threads and I have lots of blog pals and it’s all great. and then I let it slip that I don’t absolutely hate random-kinky-sexual-activity, in fact I kind of like it. suddenly half my pals are not my pals anymore, in fact they’re urging me to examine and calling me not-so-feminist and pretty soon all the good work I did is discredited and all because I reveal an interest in the one thing that is the Magic Eraser for all feminist “cred.”
how can I work with, or blog with, my former allies?
and, you know, a whole bunch of other more-or-less personal anecdotes out my ass, all coming together to tell you, Laurelin, why I (and others, I assume) can’t work with people who spend a great deal of time in “critiques of BDSM” because it’s never a critique merely of the practice.
it’s calling people who participate in the practice “dumb”, “deluded”, “corny”, “harming all women”, etc, blah blah blah.
February 19, 2009 at 12:00 AM
You seem to be about as dangerous as my 2 year old fluffy ridiculously cute hamster.
well, you don’t have to be so mean about it…;)
(I’ve also been told that I’m as aggressive as a fluffy bunny. sigh.)
I appreciate it, that you think I come across in a non-threatening manner and all. and I like you too!
nonetheless, as a kinky person, the anti-BDSM contingent considers me Part Of The Problem, nice and fluffy and “harmless” as I am.
wolf in sheep’s clothing, me. and the rest of us, I suppose.
February 19, 2009 at 12:20 AM
“Then let us take the responsibility of the consequences of our actions for our own self-regarding behavior instead of trying to white knight us out of supposedly abusive relationships.”
I’m pretty sure the point of my statement just flew 100 feet over your head. And pardon me for saying this, but 19-year-old male submissives in homosexual relationships are hardly the target of any of the statements I’ve been making.
February 19, 2009 at 12:27 AM
“(I’ve also been told that I’m as aggressive as a fluffy bunny. sigh.)”
Fluffy Bunnies rule!!
February 19, 2009 at 12:31 AM
“Good question. And why do you need validation from radical feminists? Why do you care what we think?”
“Because you are one of many blocs of people we need to convince before we have to stop worrying about losing our jobs for what we do in the bedroom. Because you are the standard bearer of a system of oppression of non mainstream sexualities in our society, and you’re pretending to do it from a progressive and non-entrenched position.”
Don’t insult my intelligence. We are not in charge of those things, and you know it.
February 19, 2009 at 12:35 AM
AP- I can’t stop critiquing BDSM just because it hurts your feelings. I have no desire to hurt your feelings, but that unfortunate side-effect won’t stop me talking. All the arguments in favour of BDSM were used on me before to wear down my resistance. I have to speak against it. The alternative is, for me, unthinkable.
February 19, 2009 at 12:44 AM
“Don’t insult my intelligence. We are not in charge of those things, and you know it.”
Thank you.
February 19, 2009 at 1:22 AM
All the arguments in favour of BDSM were used on me before to wear down my resistance. I have to speak against it. The alternative is, for me, unthinkable.
well, of course! no amount of “convincing” will change what you’re into, what makes you tick. and those that thought they could, in pursuit of getting into your pants – those individuals were clearly in the wrong, on a deep level.
and I know there’s nothing I can say to you (or to anyone similarly harmed) that will take that pain away. I get that.
I’m not trying to wear down your resistance in order to take advantage of you (though I could see where it might feel that way). I’m trying to get you to see me (and people like me) as fully human. I’m not convinced you do.
it’s not just that you’re hurting my feelings, Laurelin. People who identify as both kinky and feminist can be shut out of feminist work, out of feminist discussions, out of feminist life – if they come out as kinky in response to someone’s snide comment.
if it was as trivial as hurting my tender fee-fees, I’d get over it.
I do feel it’s important to note that in the “sex-pos”-iverse, there’s room for all kinds of consensual expression all along the continuum of sexual imagination – it all counts, from a gently penetrating gaze to dressing up like anal-probing space aliens or whatever.
There’s room for you and yours in my feminist world. There’s no room for me (and people like me) in yours.
would you walk away from that, feeling good and happy and productive, if the (sensible) shoe was on the other foot? or would you fight for acceptance on just some basic human level?
it goes beyond the “hurts my feelings” stage, for me. (I can’t speak for anyone else.)
February 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM
and, Laurelin – now that I think about it, I don’t expect you to stop the critique, and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I did.
I mean, I don’t expect to stop critiquing the critique, myself, and round and round we go, world without end…
maybe we should all just prepare ourselves to go around and around like this forever.
February 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM
after a little more thought, Laurelin, it occurs to me that a kinky woman’s presence on any given thread, or in any given environment, might hurt YOUR feelings, so to speak.
and so I feel like I should apologize. though I’m not sure if I’m apologizing for specific actions I did that made you uncomfortable, or actions I did with other people that came around to hurt you in ways I still can’t really grasp, or just for my existence as an out kinky feminist.
but further to why I won’t shut up about it all -
the shutting out of kinky feminists from feminist community – it sets up a weird power dynamic of its own. (you may deny it, but I feel that it does.) it sets up a sort of class system of feminism, in that one has to be this feminist to be included in feminist community, and if one is not at least this feminist, she can’t contribute.
you know, or she could try to fake it. but how feminist is that, to ask a woman to be inauthentic in order for her contribution to be valued?
but maybe we just sort of have to accept the fact that we’re still sorting out the Barnard College Conference of 1980-whatever. the “pleasure and danger” conference.
at any rate, it’s clear to me now that my very presence, my very existence in some parts of feminist world is offensive. and I don’t say that in a teen-drama-I’m-going-to-go-jump-off-a-bridge sort of way. (and I don’t think that I personally am all that important as to be offensive. I’m probably just irrelevant.) I say that because I realize I should be more sensitive to what my presence represents in those parts of the feminist world.
February 19, 2009 at 3:30 AM
“Divide and conquer is a strategy used by many oppressors, but I will not allow gender essentialist politics to distract from the task at hand, namely sexual freedom.”
Bravo!
Someone give that boy a cookie.
February 19, 2009 at 3:41 AM
“9 times out of 10 (or at least it seems) if I see you involved in a thread it’s either about BDSM or sex work. ”
Question for you then: Do you tend to hang around my LJ? What do you think of my posts on fandom, or about my relationship, or the like? Do you hang out on the message boards related to fandom where I’ve been spending much of my online time, for example?
It’s likely you only see me talk about this because those are the only times our paths cross.
February 19, 2009 at 3:43 AM
“I’m trying to get you to see me (and people like me) as fully human. I’m not convinced you do. ”
This. It’s not about our poor widdle fee-fees or something. It’s about basic respect.
February 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM
[Quote]Trinity
February 19, 2009 at 3:43 am
“I’m trying to get you to see me (and people like me) as fully human. I’m not convinced you do. ”
This. It’s not about our poor widdle fee-fees or something. It’s about basic respect.[/Quote]
Ironic, this is what feminsm started out as. Women wanting to be respected as human beings. It’s funny that it has become this “us against them” thing between women. This would be why I avoid most feminists because I always walk away with a feeling that I just don’t quite measure up to their standards of what a feminist “should be”.
February 19, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Love the comment in the last paragraph–what the hell is with people thinking they are somehow “radical” or “edgy,” or as you say “punk,” because they debase themselves and other people? You’re right on here. I’m so damn sick of hipsters sacrificing intellect and human rights in the name of doing/watching something that shocks “traditional” values. If individuals really want to challenge the status-quo, they should recognize that the misogyny, patriarchy and abuse they are endorsing–the manchine–is about as socially progressive as the KKK or third reich and start challenging these oppressive systems. DUH.
February 19, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Yeah, hipsters are one of the top 5 things I hate on this planet, mainly because they’re affectedly jaded, completely self-absorbed, and generally completely thoughtless and stupid (and I say that as someone who likes almost everything I like because it sucks and is thus funny, which should make me like hipsters). Hipsters and “sex positive” types kind of share that disregard for serious moral issues unless they benefit directly from having a stance.
February 19, 2009 at 9:33 PM
“share that disregard for serious moral issues unless they benefit directly from having a stance”
Yep, exactly, all the time, 24/7 you all nailed us.
rolls eyes
Christina: You even bother to read what any of the kinky people said? I wonder, because yeah, punk and edgy is what its all about, all the time, right on.
February 19, 2009 at 9:49 PM
What the hell does BDSM have to do with hipsters?
February 19, 2009 at 9:50 PM
How many kink.com models did you interview before your post?
February 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM
None. They aren’t the point. Whether the website’s models are treated well or not, the site promotes the mixture of violence with sex. That isn’t cool, and no amount of bullshit about how into it the models are is going to change that. Sorry, your little “gotcha” is nonsense.
February 19, 2009 at 10:01 PM
“punk and edgy is what its all about, all the time, right on.”
I wouldn’t know punk if it jumped out and bit me.
And… said OI? Isn’t that a punk thing? I heard it was a punk thing. :)
February 19, 2009 at 10:02 PM
I meant punk in the “resisting the status quo” sense.
February 19, 2009 at 10:05 PM
“None. They aren’t the point. Whether the website’s models are treated well or not, the site promotes the mixture of violence with sex. That isn’t cool, and no amount of bullshit about how into it the models are is going to change that. Sorry, your little “gotcha” is nonsense”
Nice to know some women matter more than others. As always, it seems. Those other women? Pfft. They don’t matter.
February 19, 2009 at 10:07 PM
They matter, but what they produce hurts other women. The point of this post is that what Kink.com puts out is morally repugnant. It wasn’t intended as a discussion of what the models at Kink.com think of their work conditions.
February 19, 2009 at 10:12 PM
morally repugnant is so subjective in many cases. I would (and have) argued that the sort of attitude towards sex put out there by various rad fems and the way they treat other women who do not agree hurts other women…oddly enough, people agree with me on that. However, I do not find that attitude morally repugnant, even if it is (why yes, IS) harmful.
February 19, 2009 at 11:16 PM
Hipsters and “sex positive” types kind of share that disregard for serious moral issues unless they benefit directly from having a stance.
what’s a “hipster”?
(I mean, so I know what I’m being lumped in with.)
February 20, 2009 at 2:00 AM
“what’s a “hipster”?
(I mean, so I know what I’m being lumped in with.)”
I’m not sure myself, tbh. Didn’t want to admit it, though, because it’s so… in? to disdain them. Whoever they may be. :)
February 20, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Joy – You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think that porn negatively affects women’s lives. There are studies upon studies that show that it decreases men’s sensitivity to women’s physical and emotional boundaries, and that it hurts relationships and damages women’s self-image. That you’re here defending it is pretty fucking bizarre. Why don’t you let the men do that for themselves?
February 20, 2009 at 3:57 AM
ND: That sort of divisionism is uncalled for.
February 20, 2009 at 4:01 AM
James – What are you talking about? If it’s my comment to Joy, there’s a large measure of sarcasm intended (though I do find women who defend porn to be an odd crew).
February 20, 2009 at 4:25 AM
Maybe they enjoy it?
February 20, 2009 at 4:34 AM
That’s the strange part.
February 20, 2009 at 4:37 AM
This really probably is the point where I should shut up. Odd crew and all.
February 20, 2009 at 5:04 AM
The deviant majority.
February 20, 2009 at 6:47 AM
Now I know how the individual models are treated isn’t the source of outrage here but as a woman who has modeled and will continue to model for kink.com I wanted to pop in. I have enjoyed working for them and would be happy to answer any questions. I engage in BDSM as both a ‘top’ and a ‘bottom’ in my personal life.
I have worked for them doing both M/f and F/f porn.
It seems most minds are made up on major issues but one avenue of discussion I’d be interested in pursuing is if F/f porn from kink.com as abhorrent to those who are offended by their other work?
One of my first shooting experiences for kink involved getting cattle prodded by a woman, directed by a woman, filmed by a woman, with a a woman production assistant. Does this change the dynamic at all?
I hope to be able to bring something new to the discussion table.
February 20, 2009 at 1:56 PM
“If individuals really want to challenge the status-quo,”
Individualism isn’t about challenging the status quo, it’s about fitting in. People who don’t fit in aren’t called “individualists” they are called “weird”.
February 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Kristine – I can’t really answer that. You would have to tell me if it changes the dynamic.
February 21, 2009 at 12:44 AM
Does anyone REALLY want to put the US government in charge of deciding what is “morally repugnant”? Furthermore, as we’re talking about the internet, does anyone want to put say, oh, the Chinese government in charge of deciding what is “morally repugnant”? Where does this end?
Ok, yeah, I get that this is a blog, and on blogs folks rant and rave about stuff, but, bottom line? What is the end purpose of this rant? Is it to get places that produce pornography closed down? Is there any other purpose, other than it being a rant/vent about something that bothers *some* folks? If so, I’ll start blogging about things that annoy me, like people that stop at green lights. ;-)
February 21, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Bella – At no point has anyone suggested that anything be banned or that the government be involved in legislating anything. The point of this blog and of most of the work of the feminists I respect most is to illustrate the ethical and moral problems with the degradation and objectification of women, to raise awareness in the hopes of creating cultural change. Banning shit doesn’t work, but changing attitudes does. The goal is to decrease demand, not to cut off supply. That’s what my brand of activism is about. Feel free to rant about traffic lights if you want, but no one will read it because no one cares about that. People do care about this, which is why I have an audience for the “rants” that you seem to think have no point. You may not believe this, but you aren’t my audience. Fence-sitters and people who haven’t thought about this stuff much are, and I’m more than happy for them to read what I’ve had to say and what everyone else has had to say and decide for themselves.
February 21, 2009 at 7:51 AM
As a female Domme, Kink.com is actually one of my favorite BDSM sites (mostly because there are so few) – my faves of the group are Men in Pain, Fucking Machines, Bound Gods, Water Bondage and Public Disgrace. My main complaint is that there is not enough Femdom porn, but IMO that just means there’s a shortage in the market to fill. Hopefully, female Dommes will start producing images of their fantasies. And believe me, women have wicked imaginations, hehe. :D
I’m not really turned on by a lot of the male Dom/female sub pics. I prefer the Femdom pics and the gay male shoots. However, I am bisexual and love playing with female subs so I do enjoy seeing images of female submission even if they’re submitting to a man. I prefer them submitting to a woman, but that’s just because I’m a Domme. I am a very visual person and so I’m very happy that there are BDSM pics out there, even if it freaks out people who don’t understand the lifestyle. Before I went to any BDSM events, I cruised many of these sites and got freaked out myself. However, now I’m loving many of the things that I thought I once hated. So maybe I’m a freak now…oh well, I’m not going to waste my life conforming to others’ version of what is “normal.”
My main problem with porn is that not enough women are producing it. I would prefer that women were the ones creating it and that they were the ones profiting from it. I love erotic imagery and plan to start photographing my subs, both male and female. If more women produced porn that they like, then I believe that women would enjoy porn more. I know that the author of this blog is anti-porn, but my main problem with porn is that there’s not enough that specifically targets a female audience so we end up with male-centric porn.
I used to have a problem with the idea of a female submitting to a male, but I have learned to respect that desire in my female switch/sub friends. I do not switch and I don’t pretend to understand the submissive mind, but I believe that everyone is different and each has a right to live his/her true self regardless of power and gender roles. I do believe that power dynamics are natural in the world, whether we live in a patriarchy or a matriarchy. Some people enjoy adding a power dynamic to their sexual lives. I see nothing wrong with that as long as everyone is happy and fulfilled.
I’ve just discovered this blog and have been reading many of the comments on a previous thread debating submissive women/male Doms, and many dismiss tops/sadists as “monsters.” There hasn’t been much discussion yet on female Dommes and male submissives or female Dommes with female subs. I’m curious as to what people think of female Dommes and female switches. Perhaps it has been discussed in this thread already…I haven’t gotten around to reading the 400+ comments, but I will.
And what do you think of female Dommes who enjoy photographing their subs (both male & females) in a kinky/pornographic manner?
February 21, 2009 at 10:55 PM
ND: “[kinky women] acquiesce to and further the idea that women are (and ought to be) submissive and masochistic.”
OK, possibly I’m missing something here. But surely by this argument, every time I cook dinner, I’m acquiescing to and furthering the idea that women are supposed to cook the dinners? Or each time I go to work (I’m a childcarer/playworker/assistant teacher), I’m acquiescing to and furthering the idea that it’s women’s job to take care of children? Should I quit my jobs and let myself (and my family/partner/charge, on occasion) go hungry, to prove a point about patriarchy?
If not, why does your theory only apply to sexuality?
If so, what on earth is the alternative?
February 21, 2009 at 10:59 PM
It applies to everything, though I realize that we have to make realistic choices. I think that this particular choice wouldn’t be made as often if we weren’t told that our sexuality is shameful and that we ought to have to be led into enjoying sex and/or punished for liking it.
February 22, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I will admit that I have not had the time to read all current 420 replies to the original posting, however I would like to publicly state my opinion here.
Who am I? I am Claire Adams, Pro BDSM Director, Pro Bondage Rigger, BDSM Educator, and Pro Bondage Model. I have guest directed, rigged, topped, and bottomed at kink.com before. The most recent time I have been there was in November to guest direct for one of their sites that has caught your attention, DeviceBondage.com
There are Webmasters/Directors there that allow their models to escalate past a point of a healthy emotional or psychological well being. There are models there that do the same thing just to make more money and will not approach anyone in regards to the issue. I do not condone the activities of either side in that situation, period. They are going against policy and they know it. There are corrupt people everywhere. Money corrupts many and it is evident up to the oval office abuse of power corrupts even more .
With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. I agree that some -not all- of the content is over the top and borderline non-consentual. This is made for tv porn where there are many many cuts and the models are directed to act terrorized or are terrorized to illicit responses of consentual sexual, mind you bizarre, but consentual sexual acts.
What is depicted on Kink.com is quite often far from a real life bdsm experience. It is like the soap opera porn of bdsm. My question to you would be have you ever seen a loving couple engage in a bdsm activity at a club or community event? If you have not, then I do understand your point of view -if- porn has been your only exposure, but I do not agree with it.
People watch the circus acts at kink.com because it is more extreme in some ways than private/community play but also because many cannot replicate things such as the elaborate rope bondage or feel comfortable approaching someone that looks like a porn star when they may not feel entirely confident about their self image.
What I am asked to to as a -guest- director at kink.com is very little. I have my own stringent code of ethics as to the models emotional and physical well being. It is my first priority and I will never compromise their well being to get a shot or do something they do not wish to do, period.
I would challenge you to find a shoot in question where I did not have the models best interest at heart be it male or female or a member of the community professional or private that would say I would push talent in a non consentual manner or that I have ever harmed talent in any way.
I am considered quite controversial in the way I approach an on camera scene because I come from the community, I understand what is right and what is wrong and no matter what a model is never in jeopardy of being emotionally or physically compromised.
I do not expect to change your views of BDSM, that is another matter. I do wish to open your mind that the BDSM community is not representitive to real BDSM acts based on the circus porn of kink.com from someone that has first hand experience both in front of and behind the camera there.
Sincerely,
-Claire Adams
February 22, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I think that this particular choice wouldn’t be made as often if we weren’t told that our sexuality is shameful and that we ought to have to be led into enjoying sex and/or punished for liking it
I think this is quite possibly true. I don’t have a problem with people seeing BDSM as a symptom of a society that’s severely messed up about sexuality. It makes sense. However I think there are other things that come from the same roots that are far more harmful than consensual BDSM – sexual violence and coercion, for a start. There’s a world of difference between a situation in which someone commits rape because a fucked up society has told them that it’s acceptable, women want it really, you need to ‘seduce’ someone into sex, etc… and a situation in which someone follows their own desires to find a mututally consenting relationship and safe place to have a sort of sex that may look violent or disgusting to someone who doesn’t share those desires. The former obviously harms people (predominantly women), whereas I believe that the latter doesn’t. I don’t think that BDSM porn encourages viewers to rape or abuse women. That’s the same line of thinking that brought us the “Marilyn Manson caused Columbine” argument.
I also have problems with the “some women, by doing this, further their own oppression and make all women look bad” argument. I don’t think women have a responsibility to avoid doing things that are associated with female stereotypes. It’s far more important that women live in a way that makes them happy and fulfilled. I used to worry a lot about whether I should give in to my likings for makeup, high heels, childcare, fucking boys, BDSM, etc etc. Then I realised that my worrying myself into knots was doing precisely fuck-all for feminism, that these individual choices have little to no effect on women’s rights, and that my life and the world would be a much better place if I started thinking less about the personal and more about the political. I’ve done so much more activism and been so much more politically engaged since then. But then, I’m a dirty liberal ‘sex-positive’, so what do you expect really ;)
February 23, 2009 at 8:07 AM
I enjoy Kink.com. I also make my own BSDM movies with women sometimes being tied up and tormented. We don’t have any movies where men do the tying up and spanking or other types of play, but I won’t rule it out. I don’t submit to men or women because I’m not a submissive, but I don’t see myself as any different from any of the submissive or switch women I know and am close to. When I act on my sexuality, I’m making a choice, and submissive women are no different just because they’re doing something you find distasteful.
The women I know who are into kink aren’t into it because some man is telling them to be. If that were the case, my womens group, comprised of women who play with other women and some who also play with men, would be rather surprised to learn that about themselves.
One submissive female friend actually runs an entire S&M club. When she’s at work, she’s bossing around her male partner, who she calls “Sir”. He never undermines her authority when it comes to business and stays home and does childcare for her child when she has last-minute things to do and can’t get a sitter. That
is hardly a typical patriarchal relationship. How their relationship works when she’s not at work is something quite different, but it’s still her choice.
A lot of power exchange can look like some of the worst of what we see in the patriarchy. I get that; however, a lot of power exchange can also turn things we see in patriarchy right on its head. It’s certainly easier to get a whole lot of anti-kink feminists to raise a hue and cry when porn is imitating antiquated roles in new and interesting ways, but it’s a little harder to make the same argument that kinky porn is bad for women when it’s women beating on the men. The argument that women couldn’t possibly be choosing to participate in such violence and degradation gets significantly weaker here.
I’m OK with people not approving of my sexuality. I don’t do what I do to make anyone happy but myself and my partner or partners, whatever gender they are. What I’m not OK with is anyone telling me that I’m not thinking for myself or that anything I do with my kink is somehow less-feminist-than-thou. Feminism isn’t about letting everyone else define who we are on an individual level. Show some respect for the women whose sexuality isn’t a mirror of your own.
February 25, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Fundamentalism is going to be the death of us all. We do nobody any justice if we boil everything down to black or white.
February 26, 2009 at 4:34 AM
Hello,this site I havent checked it out sounds to me very much like ;inhumanity.com and efukt.com
be warned both sites include very disturbing and humilliating Material.
I tried to do something about both sites without any succes I wrote to amnesty international and to a provider.Maybe there is some way to boykott those sites?!?!
February 26, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Knotty – You think that claiming that free choice is all that matters doesn’t amount to boiling things down to black and white? Free choice has to be balanced with the good of the whole, and that ain’t being dealt with here.
February 27, 2009 at 3:28 AM
“I tried to do something about both sites without any succes I wrote to amnesty international and to a provider.Maybe there is some way to boykott those sites?!?!”
Amnesty International isn’t going to do much. And, yes, you could boycott those site, but to do that you’d have to be otherwise meaning to go their.
Attacking their provider is more likely to be useful…perhaps some sort of advertising campaign telling others that might want to use them that they are involved with BDSM?
February 27, 2009 at 6:23 PM
I promised myself to write a comment on every step of this series. I promised myself I would read the comments too. However, 463 comments is a little much for my tolerance.
You want me to defend kink.com. All right, I will. Firstly, once again, it’s porn. It’s an extreme. You are right in the fact that the people watching are getting off on the pain of women. But, you are forgetting that the women are getting off just as much in those videos.
Kink.com is an extremely controlled environment. There is ALWAYS a safe word. (Some of you snarky sorts will be asking how do you use a safe word in your mouth. In these situations there is a safe gesture that works the same way.) At any time if the woman wants to stop the scene, wants to back out all they have to do is say a word and it stops.
So really, what you are saying is you want to deny these women the right to earn a quick buck doing something they enjoy. That is a pretty anti feminist point of view. They wouldn’t have chosen to act in fetish pornography lightly and they are always told EXACTLY what will be in store for them.
It may seem like the awful extreme, and in many ways it is. But it’s all just as carefully controlled and any movie. There are medical staff and the people are experts at their craft. You will notice a lot of repeat models on the sites and that is because it’s something they enjoy doing.
I would totally agree that they are the most awful bunch of sites on the world if they were kidnapping hobos off the street, but they aren’t. They are providing a niche service. While we’re panning them, we might as well get down on acupuncturists. I mean those sick bastards are putting needles in naked people to HEAL THEM!? The madness!
These people choose this path of their own accord, and as a pack of outsiders who have no interest it’s not exactly your place to judge.
February 28, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Weird, a post seems not to have appeared. Could be part of the internet problems I have just had.
Basically I just said,
‘How can any choice a woman makes, not be feminist?’
Surely being able to make the choice, is the point.
March 1, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Of course not all choices that women make are feminist, Geasa. Your comment reminds me of the sarcastic bumper sticker that reads: “Every time I move I make a women’s movement”. There’s a difference between feminist choices — choices that people make to promote the equality of women and women’s liberation from patriarchy — and the choices that women make in order to survive in patriarchy. For example, I choose not to shave my legs — a relatively feminist choice because it questions the trope that demands that women shave in order to be sexy/sexual/attractive — but I still pluck my eyebrows because I feel that adhering to that particular femininity standard will allow me to continue to live my live relatively peacefully without a lot of crap from the dudes and other patriarchy-enforcers. You’re right that opening up the number of choices women have to make is one goal of feminism, but ultimately feminism seeks to end patriarchy, which limits everyone’s choices all the time. In other words, the end goal of feminism is not to provide women with equal choices but to liberate women from patriarchal oppression, some of which materializes in the form of limiting women’s choices re: their sexuality and work.
March 2, 2009 at 8:15 PM
I did wrote to their provider,and nothing happened they told me they are not responsible for it cuz they are not hosting em or something like that and gave me links of the hosting site wich I wrote to and nothing happened still.
I am from Austria,I have an english boyfriend but I dont speak perfectly english so b4 any1 thinks Im retarded I thought I point this out.
March 9, 2009 at 12:09 AM
ND, I am so sorry – I forgot to turn on follow-up comments! That offer to chat still stands, of course, although it might be easier via email than in the middle of this tangle.
March 12, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Does this mean there’s no defense for it? I never got one. Woohoo! I win!
March 12, 2009 at 2:47 PM
It annoys the radfems?
March 12, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Hardy har, James. I think you might want to replace “annoys” with “terrifies,” since we’re the ones who have to walk around at night in a public populated by people who wank to this kind of shit.
March 12, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Put me down for terrified too.
Don’t say such callous things, James, when you know damn well that a whole bunch of the women reading and commenting here are survivors of sexual violence.
It’s called conscience.
March 12, 2009 at 7:58 PM
And John? “But, you are forgetting that the women are getting off just as much in those videos.” I bet you believe the women in porn are “getting off” too. Wow. Just wow.
Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
March 13, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Yeah, Men In Pain really had me fearing for my cock.
March 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
You don’t have to worry about being attacked by women or by other men to the same degree that women do. Stop being purposely dense. And don’t use the word “cock” on my site. It’s aesthetically repulsive and it’s just lame.
March 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM
It’s hardly as if there’s much risk of you getting attacked with a cattle prod, either. kink.com is purposefully theatrical, it’s hardly a depiction of the standard sexual abuse encountered by women, which is a far more domestic affair. Indeed, the inflation of “stranger danger” seems to me a distortion of reality, overlooking the regularity with which an abuser is someone pre-known rather than some malignant stranger lurking in the shadows. That somehow should be combated, but it won’t be by waving hands over a BDSM website.
Additionally, our views on aesthetics would appear to vary more than a tad. Cock is one of my favourite words, and I don’t see how it’s lame at all. Indeed, it’s quite a curious choice of words.
March 13, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Well actually since they are using forced stimulation, they actually are receiving pleasure…. And if you could be so polite as to spell my name properly, bit of a pet peeve.
March 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Ah, James, you’re a guy, you don’t get the same shit we do. Comprende? Capiche?
And that you say ‘fearing for your cock’ speaks volumes. Women fear for their lives.
March 14, 2009 at 12:19 AM
You’re insinuating that women being forced into sexual activity are enjoying themselves, and you’re asking *us* to be polite?
You know that there are survivors of sexual violence here right? Who have suffered from just the sort of violence you are defending? Or do you not regard that as important?
I certainly find that to be ruder and viler than someone misspelling your name, Fred.
March 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM
James, how do you know what ‘standard sexual abuse’ is inflicted upon women?
You’re a guy. You have no. Fucking. Clue what women experience.
Do yourself a favour, shut your ignorant mouth before you make yourself look evil as well as stupid.
March 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM
James, yes, there is porn of nasty things being done to men. Not nearly as much as there is of nasty things being done to women (even if you don’t count mainstream as nasty). Yes, most sexual assaults are committed by people the victim knew, and yes, men are attacked by strangers as well. Women are more likely to be raped by a stranger than men are. Yes, bad things happening to men is an important topic, but it’s not the one currently being discussed here, which is why the people attacking kink.com aren’t mentioning it. The only argument that can really be made in favour of kink.com is that people, in fact, are able to distinguish porn from reality, that watching porn does not automatically mean people will emulate it. And those attacking it are doing so because they believe that to be untrue.
Jon…the issue of whether or not women in porn are enjoying themselves is a bit of a sticky one. Personally, I’d say that it is as foolish to claim that none are as that all are, but where the divide is is beyond me. I would say that amateur porn and so on, something which is more of a strange hobby or addition to income, instead of the performers main source of income is more likely to be enjoyed, but again, what the ratio is, and how much that claims to be truly is is beyond me.
Additionally, that’s not much of a defence, as it’s not the welfare of the performers which is ND’s main concern, rather the state of mind of the audience (not trying to put words in ND’s mouth and apologies if I’ve interpreted wrong).
March 14, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Jon:
“Forced stimulation” is pleasant? I hope to god I’m misreading you, but just in case I’m not: Rape is not fun.
March 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM
I’ve just stumbled upon this blog, and been rather disturbed by what I’ve read: not because of the porn itself (which is undoubtedly disturbing stuff, and worthy of proper debate), but because of the flat-out condemnatory stuff that’s been written about it. Before you label me as evil, bear with me, and hear me out – I’m not defending kink.com, but I am surprised at how vehemently people are going about their finger-pointing here…
“These sites aren’t about “exploring our dark sides,” they’re about giving free reign to the sickest of human desires, desires that are inculcated by a sexually repressed and guilt-ridden society that has yet to figure out how to deal with the detritus of religious dogma and has thus intertwined fear and hatred with sex to create the misogynistic shit heap we now live in…If exploring your “dark side” entails wanking to women being tortured, it might be best to leave it unexplored. Or kill yourself.”
I’m a little confused here; Nine, you seem to be suggesting that the solution to the violent pornography you’ve witnessed – which, according to your Freudian interpretation, is caused by repression of ‘the sickest of human desires’ – is further repression, or suicide?
Far be it from me to try to defend the BDSM industry (I don’t know enough about the matter, and would rather not change that fact), and I agree to some extent that the matter of ‘consensual’ bondage is inherently murky, given the fact that we’re all products of the society in which we were raised**; but your diatribe is a little one-sided, to say the very least. For one thing, you’ve conveniently ignored the entire issue of BDSM where women ‘abuse’ men (I haven’t bothered to do your degree of research, but I’ll make a safe bet that every ‘torture’ exacted upon apparently willing women is similarly doled out to equally willing men) – is this equally misogynistic? Or a powerful statement of feminism? Or just plain ‘evil’? Isme retorts that “..there is porn of nasty things being done to men. Not nearly as much as there is of nasty things being done to women” – I’d love to see some statistics, rather than just idle speculation being spoken as gospel truth. And is quantity/frequency really the best gauge for how seriously an issue should be taken? If women>men bondage outnumbered men>women bondage, would the latter suddenly become acceptable? I don’t think so…
Like I said, I don’t wish to defend a porn industry I know very little of, but I think it’s a little naive, and perhaps a bit dangerous, to try to reduce these matters to black and white (sexuality, like most human conditions, is a spectrum) and condemning whole groups of people based on nothing more than your own opinions will likely only force them further away from daylight, where – out of sight of those who would wish to hold open debate about the nature of what exactly is and isn’t acceptable – they will surely find more freedom to further degrade your idea of what constitutes ‘healthy’ sexuality.
Unless you’re advocating a telescreen in every room of every building everywhere, and harsh penalties for those who indulge in subversive sexual acts (a measure I couldn’t begin to agree with), I really fail to see what good it does to be so aggressively judgmental towards people you don’t know. For the sake of argument, imagine kink.com was a softcore gay porn site, and had offended your senses in much the same way (as such a site would have, were attitudes unchanged since the 50s) – is your argument still valid? Or just ignorant?
I appreciate we’re talking about extreme stuff, the sort of porn which arguably borderlines with (and/or acts as a stepping stone to) rape and snuff films – and from my personal viewpoint, it’s certainly disturbing material – but bullying people who don’t think the way you do tends only to strengthen their convictions, and hand them an easy defence by way of persecution. Is it not better to encourage a dialogue, and then to use your way with words to enlighten, rather than to demonize?
Knee-jerk damnation (and, however much you mulled over what you saw, your response remains a knee-jerk one) cannot serve any positive purpose besides reaffirming the majority’s taste for the status quo (which is a false affirmation, since the very process scares dissenters into silence). As a fairly rational (I try my best) atheist, I’m loathe to quote scripture, but there’s a lot to be said for the advice “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
**Incidentally, this argument, which crops up a lot over the above comments (which I’ve only scan read, truth be told) seems – to my mind at least – to logically extend to the assertion that no sex can be truly consensual… Which strikes me as rather odd.**
March 25, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Read the comments.
March 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM
But it’s not rape. It’s consensual sex. Rape is not fun, it takes all control away from the victim. Here, with a word or a gesture it ALL stops. It’s not rape if you are still in control of how far is too far.
March 25, 2009 at 6:30 PM
There’s a lot of room for problems – how does someone who is restrained and gagged put a stop to anything? And if someone is raped, how do they prove it? But besides all of that, there is a problem with the production of porn like this because it is anti-woman propaganda.
March 25, 2009 at 6:31 PM
I am not defending violence against women. I am defending a woman’s right to enjoy what she chooses to. You are acting as if these people are kidnapped off the streets and forced into the most vile of positions.
But they aren’t. I have never raped a woman. Never will for that matter because I respect a woman’s right to choose a partner. I also support her right to choose which sex acts she wishes to engage with along with said partner.
And yes, I realize that there are rape survivors here, and they they have suffered from these acts in situations where a man (or woman) took control from them. And that is horrible, because in that situation there is nothing you can do to make it end, nothing you can do to make it stop.
But, in these situations, the woman can make it end, and can make it stop anytime she wants to. In all the BDSM play I have engaged in, there has been a safe word and a way for her to stop everything at the drop of a hat and for any reason. I have NEVER ignored a safe word usage. And Never would.
March 25, 2009 at 6:35 PM
I went over this earlier. When you are bound and gagged there is a gesture you look for. Usually it’s along the line of holding up fingers. 1 for slow down, 2 for stop, things of that nature.
But the fact of it being anti woman propaganda isn’t even what you are arguing most of the time. You are arguing that a woman shouldn’t be able to chose to engage in S&M sex because doing so belittles the cause when I am saying that S&M, like being gay, is just something you enjoy from birth.
You say if tomorrow, society was reborn into your golden ideal, there would never be S&M again, but that is like saying that is tomorrow the whole world became born again christians there would never be anyone born gay either.
The porn isn’t exactly anti woman propaganda because at the end, they show her smiling and that she WAS in fact a voluntary participate. Not a rape victim.
March 25, 2009 at 6:54 PM
You’re purposely missing the point. This post isn’t about the Kink.com models, it’s about the kind of misogynistic social environment in which a site like Kink.com is possible.
March 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I have made no such claim. I’ve acknowledged the choice of the women who participate in this kind of work. That isn’t the issue here.
March 25, 2009 at 7:40 PM
“The porn isn’t exactly anti woman propaganda because at the end, they show her smiling”
In 2003, a big story in Japan was news that hundreds of male college students at Waseda University joined a club that organized rapes of college students. After a party, members would take about 100 attractive girls to another club and ply them with alcohol, then select five or six of the drunken women, isolate them, and take turns raping them.
The serial rapists distributed a manual on how to get away with rape. It explained how to organise a party, sell tickets, sweet-talk girls, and then threaten them them out of pressing charges by forcing the victims to smile for pictures.
Of course, these are the only young men in existence who came upon the idea of forcing women to smile while raping them because pornograpghy makes discredited whores out of women, but imagine if this wasn’t an exceptional case and millions of other men started to figure out the porno gambit can let them get away with rape.
March 25, 2009 at 9:25 PM
Ah, James, you’re a guy, you don’t get the same shit we do. Comprende? Capiche?
You aren’t the representative of all women. Most women aren’t radical feminists, in fact very few are. Even most other feminists think that your variety goes too far and don’t agree with you about much.
And that you say ‘fearing for your cock’ speaks volumes. Women fear for their lives.
Was sarcasm.
James, how do you know what ’standard sexual abuse’ is inflicted upon women?
Stats. Accounts. Absence of people saying that they were forced into small cages or attacked with cattle prods…
You’re a guy. You have no. Fucking. Clue what women experience.
I’ve received no evidence that it’s like anything like the borderline camp theatrics of kink.com and have no reason to imagine that it is. It’s high on drama, low on naturalism.
Do yourself a favour, shut your ignorant mouth before you make yourself look evil as well as stupid.
Why would I look evil?
March 26, 2009 at 10:47 AM
“I’d love to see some statistics, rather than just idle speculation being spoken as gospel truth.”
Look at some link sites about BDSM porn. The vast majority of it is about things done to women. Only a very small amount is about things done to men, and that is less common than those sick snuff porn cartoons around (which almost invariably are about things done to women, usually white, usually by “ethnic” looking people).
March 26, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Once more: You have no fucking clue what women experience.
Go do your homework. There are many helpful links which will tell you about the abuse women routinely experience in the rape industry on my blog, right hand side, under ‘anti-porn’ and ‘anti-prostitution’ links.
Don’t address me again. Ever.
March 26, 2009 at 3:28 PM
“I’ve received no evidence that it’s like anything like the borderline camp theatrics of kink.com and have no reason to imagine that it is. It’s high on drama, low on naturalism.”
There actually are quite a large number of women who endure the type of abuse you describe (i.e. being prodded with a cattle prod, being kept in cages), particularly if they are victims of human trafficking. Just because you don’t know anything about this reality, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
March 26, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Actually, there are some men and women who think that because of societal factors, etc. there really can’t be any such thing as “consensual heterosexual sex,” but that leaves homosexuality open for some, others see “traditional gender roles” manifest in varieties of relationships. So, there are, no doubt, some “feminists” who believe that there is no such thing as “consensual sex.”
Incidentally (and I wouldn’t call myself a “feminist” per se), I actually believe that there is no such thing as “consensual sex” of any sort. But I have different reasons. Let me say that I do believe that what is known as “non-consensual sex,” in other words, rape, is a very real very horrible problem. But denying consensual sex does not, I think, commit me to a denial of non-consensual sex. Let’s first determine what we mean by “consensual.” It comes from “consent”
1: to give assent or approval : agree
2 archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment
The first definition involves reflection on the part of an agent A who then signals approbation regarding something C to another agent B. This seems to be the definition used when a someone is accused of rape: A did not give B consent regarding C. Construed this way, definition 1 is incompatible with the archaic definition 2 above. Definition 2 is actually closer to what I would consider a healthy attitude toward what sex, for the following reason: Presupposing that acts of sex take place only when one agent has reflected upon and signaled approbation to another agent pretty much rules out spontaneous expressions of mutual love between two individuals, and that, for me, is authentic sex. And to make myself clear, I’m not saying that what I’ve tried to describe (but which I’ve just now found to be extremely difficult to express with words) is the most common or usual way people have sex, in fact, I find that it is a very unusual occurrence. Even now that I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for over a year, most of the times we have sex someone initiates, and sometimes one of us is not really in the mood but “consents” anyway. However, in these cases “sex” is noticeably different from the spontaneous mutual expressions of love that simultaneously occur when authentic sex takes place.
I’m prepared to defend my views above but, unless something like the above is to be found in the tomes of kink . com, I think I’ve wondered off topic.
March 30, 2009 at 2:12 AM
holy shit, almost 500 comments. i can’t read them all. but i skimmed a few. and there were actually some willing to defend this shit? lobotomies, please, lobotomies.
March 30, 2009 at 10:51 PM
ND, I admire your arrogance and elitism, but take issue with your perspective that BDSM is not a sexual orientation. Your arguments are reminiscent of the objections fundamentalist religions raise against homosexuality. How sad.
March 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Uh, dude, that’s been covered in a lot of the comments above. And in this post. You’re not original, nor are you right.
March 30, 2009 at 11:42 PM
So the Establishment despises homosexuality because it undermines male superiority roles, while you dislike BDSM because it encourages parallel roles of domination and submission. Same-sex love offends their image of a perfect world, and BDSM offends yours, dude.
To rail against truly evil things such as rape is understandable, but to lump together everyone in a wide, diverse sexual orientation like BDSM and label them as immoral seems sophomoric and lazy.
March 30, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Way to avoid the point.
March 30, 2009 at 11:52 PM
The point being that I am unoriginal and incorrect? Way to convert the masses. Dude.
March 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Go read the posts and the comments. I’m not required to re-write thousands of words because you’re too lazy to read. The argument that my taking issue with the conflation of power with sex in a hierarchical and oppressive society is somehow akin to homophobia is fucking absurd.
March 31, 2009 at 12:13 AM
You seem to have confused being confrontational and controversial with being compelling and convincing.
This is going nowhere. I don’t blame you if you choose not to post this.
March 31, 2009 at 12:17 AM
Read the posts, and argue about specific points if you have a problem with something. Your comparison between questioning the power dynamic in a sexual fetish and homophobia is weak. I wrote an entire post on it, which I linked to earlier, and which you’re going to have to read if you want to keep making that comparison. All you’re doing right now is talking shit, so come up with an argument or piss off.
May 12, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Your femininity has nothing to do with it. You could be male, transgender, or asexual, and you still wouldn’t be their audience, simply because of your view of the site. Terming you “nothing” to them is slightly silly, though – probably a reaction to your own violent response.
May 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM
@Gorgias: it’s not genes, it’s the conditions of the pregnancy, for homosexuality at least. in simple terms, if a woman is unduly stressed during her pregnancy, it can affect the amount of testosterone she releases, which affects the development of the child. For a boy, it happens when she’s stressed and deals poorly with it, ie, NOT producing enough testosterone. For a girl, it’s when she’s stressed and powers through it, thus releasing excess testosterone. Apparently the Germans figured that one out awhile ago after wondering why so many German males that were carried during WWII were gay…I can’t put my finger on the link to the technical-jargon version of the study, but it’s out there. It’s nature, just not genetics.
…don’t ask me why we’re kinky. I got nothin’. ^_^ Maybe I’ll do a study on that, when I get my PsyD…
May 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM
“if a hand smacks my naked butt in the middle of the forest and nobody is around to hear it, is patriarchy recapitulated?”
…I think I’m in love. *giggles* antiprincess, that was ridiculously well-phrased.
June 7, 2009 at 5:52 PM
ND, I love this:
I’m all for women being free of the shame that society tries to attach to their enjoying sex, but this is not a freedom from that, it’s a result of it. If women weren’t ashamed of their sexuality, they probably wouldn’t develop the desire to be dominated (which removes the responsibility for liking sex from them), forced (same deal), or humiliated and hurt (which works as a sort of penance for enjoying sex). And who the fuck is Kink.com to speak for women’s sexuality anyway?
I say:
MEE TOOO! I know this chicks love it. I know lots of them feel freedom in “surrender.” I also know it is BECAUSE of shame, not in spite of it. It’s so fucking ironic that in order to
“be a woman” you must reduce yourself to admitting you are a filthy whore who deserves to be fucked. I’m so confused!
No, I’m not ND is right. The whole desire to be controlled, I think, is driven from shame, otherwise there would be loads and loads of dominant women out there.
And why are most of the women on their site white? Hmm…… I wonder if many of them came from Protestant religions. Hmmm…..I wonder if that the reason it’s a “turn on” is because they didn’t really do it! Someone made them.
I’m an unabashed slut…. of my own naming. Not because my “master” said so, therefore I agree. It’s because I SAY SO, BITCHES.
June 18, 2009 at 7:40 PM
I guess you won’t let this through either, will ya? Just wondered how many may have already defended it in a way that you couldn’t answer to. Who knows, as you may not let through most of the things?
But whatever.
I’ve read the question as to why the choice would be feminist if it meant to chose “unfeminist acts”.
That is the thing. You assume that such things as “feminist acts” do exist.
Those who believe that being able to chose is feminist, believe that everything a woman truly choses can’t be anything but feminist.
When deciding how to cut my hair, what is feminist? Is cutting the hair short feminist for women and letting it grow long feminist for men? If so, this would simply reverse the standards. Again. Is only letting it grow feminist, or only cutting it short -meaning that now only not all males have to do the same and all women have to do the same but now everybody has to be exactly the same? Would that be feminist? If everybody wore their the eact feminist lenght? And who choses what the feminist length is?
You tell me that feminism is about challenging patriarchy. Meaning that according to that standard, only growing long for males and cutting short for women would be feminist. The opposite theory -the one that is not held by you- is that the ability to chose is feminist. That everyone is allowed to wear their hair as wanted, not only legally but socially too.
And here comes the most important question into play: what is being equal actually about? Is it some religion like “I believe in equalness because Dworkin has written it in her holy scriptures?” Or does it have the purpose that we all are able to chose what we want to do no matter what gender or class or colour we are? If the former- well, I hope you at least get a heaven or paradise or something for it because it’s worse than every fundamentalist religion otherwise. If the latter- then why does it matter if something is socially determined as long as it’s innate enough that we feel it as good? If we want to let our hair grow short than it is worth fighting for that we can, even one the smaller occasicions. But if we simply feel that longer hair looks good at us, even though we know that we’d have another taste had we grown up differently, but the conditioning is so deep that we feel it as pretty- then why is it bad? Why do we need to question it? Questioning a dress code or norm is okay, but do we always have to question our own feelings and tastes and rebel against it or can’t we simply take ourselves the way they are- not the way society wants us do be nor what we suppose we are like deep inside but what we are right now for whatever reason. Equal rights are important, not only those on the paper but also the social ones. But what is important about equalITY and what does it for us that makes it more important than our orgams? We are, and I won’t contradict you on this, to some point socially determined- yes, but why does it matter where our feelings and thoughts are from? Why does it matter if they feel good to anyone involved? Why is equality more important than feeling good? Rather: we all are conditioned in some way. We are conditioned in what food we prefer and what hairstyle and clothing and whatever it is. This conditioning thing seems to come innate in all social animals. And it comes in many topics. Why not in sexuality?
Am I questioning my favorite food? No, although it takes a much bigger room in my life than sex. I KNOW that, would I have been born in Indonesia, rice would have been my staple food and I hardly could not like it. I KNOW that my staple food is bread because I’m conditioned to. Why not saying that it’s a racist choice to eat bread as a staple food and that in order to overcome racism I have to live on rice even though I life in the wrong country and have to wrong taste for it? That’s it, I accept it as possible conditioning and don’t give a shit on it. As long as nobody forces me to eat bread as a staple food no racism is done.
There are so many useless norms and conventions that go on although they don’t make ANYONE orgasm. Why defy exactly those that do?
Faith has said that acknowledging desire is feminist and that acting on it isn’t. But why? Why is feminism not about loosing conventions and norms that hinder our desires? Why should feminism be about “I sacrifice my desires for a life in which all people are 100% equal even though they aren’t really but at least they are suppressing the fact that everyone is different and life up to the idea of equality for no reason at all”? What is equality for? Why is not acting on one’s desires (again only if it’s desired by all participants) more feminist?
It’s like saying giving birth is antifeminist (and unlike brushing teeth, birth and children are very feminist topics)- but it isn’t, it is only antifeminist if norms require that all women give birth or that women don’t do anything else. According to your theory, giving birth would be an unfeminist thing to do so even if one has the wish to give birth (and acknowledge it, perhaps) one would have to supress it for some higher “equality” good that has nothing in for me.
Note that with growing hair, I have explicitly chosen a topic that is 100% socially determined. And yet, even though it’s proven for 100% sure that it is does anyone seriously consider that growing hair long is inherently wrong?
By the way, you say BDSM is mixing violence with sex just for the reason that the practices sometimes done in BDSM often appear similiar to real violence. But then again, by the strict nature of the act completely vanilla intercourse can also be used as violence- and is. Does that mean that the “normal” way of doing it is “mixing violence with sex” just because it can be used as violence? I hope not. They can be used this way, yes, but it is not inherent in the act. Hey, let’s assume that in a world without patriarchy, no one would have sex. Sure sex is merely a byproduct of the rape culture because it fetishizes exactly the same act that can be used to rape too! And homosexuality, there are homosexual rapes too, so normal homosexual sex and relationships sure are just byproducts of a society that fetishizes homosexual rape or what? Perhaps without patriarchy we’d be asexual, perhaps all our sexual desires are just conditioned and it lays in human nature to be asexual? This only sounds so ridicoulous because vanilla sex is so much more prevelant, but besides that tell me the difference: why is feeling pleasure in certain acts not conditioned when feeling pleasure in others is?
You said that what the Kink.com models think doesn’t matter because it was harmful to society/ women, but if it isn’t harmful to them then why is it that it should be for the rest?
You’re saying that free choice ought to be balanced for the good of the whole. But if free choice was the good of the whole? What then?
Tell me what is mysiogynist (hope I spelled it right as I’m no native speaker) about BDSM, if there is nothing inherently mysiogynistic in vanilla sex! Just because women are more often subs?
You know, I really hate the extremism by both sexism and “feminism”. Like, when told that few women are in high wage jobs. Sexism says “That’s because women ought not to, and if there are ones who do they are very rare exceptations and girls and boys should be taught what they have to do as early as possible”, and feminism says “OMG they’re not completely 50/50 but the world has to be completely 50/50 and will end if it doesn’t; don’t waste time to change society so young children won’t get raised that way anymore, but rather try to change the conditioned women who are happy being kindergardeners and housewives which they aren’t allowed to because it’s not completely 50/50! I don’t know why it has to be 50/50 because logically one would take those that seem able -be it due to conditioning or birth- but I want 50/50 so everybody’s equal.” To me, this is not what feminism is about.
So if there WAS a difference? A difference based on individuality, a difference that may by accident fall a bit to one side more than to the other? Or maybe it’s conditioned, like basically all our tastes and preferences are some way. What if feminism could, instead of having the ultimate goal of everything being 50/50, be used to enable women to chose everything with everyone who choses to too without suffering from biases? What if BDSM had nothing more to do with violence than vanilla sex with rape?
September 14, 2009 at 7:50 PM
How about this…why don’t you try actually talking to some female masochists and asking them questions about why they do this and what they get out of it? Their answers might surprise you. Fetlife.com is a very friendly site and it has a lot of forums with many women of all sexual orientations who take various different roles in BDSM. You could talk to them and start a dialogue.
October 8, 2009 at 7:21 AM
O-o as a person from the bdsm community, I would like to point out that Kink.com is a very extreme example and, to me, just as sick as 9-2 makes it out to be.
however, i can also say that it is not representative of bdsm as a whole. these extreme sites (many of them flash the word like it’s a hot button that dispences magical candy and triples profits) are about as far removed from regular bdsm as religious extremists are from normal religion.
meaning the two go together (same fundamentals), but one does not represent the other (different way of doing things). In a normal bdsm relationship hard and soft limits are established, a healthy amount of respect is given to both the dom and the sub, and there is usually a lot of cuddling afterward to give the sub time to cool off and feel special.
in extreme sites, most of these traditions are ignored entirely. only the dom is given respect, no limits are given, and there doesn’t appear to be any down time.
I actually recommend looking at this site’s “Bondage guide” to figure out what a normal bdsm relationship is like:
many of the stories included on other pages of the site are pure fantasy and should not be taken as what ever bdsm fan does on a regular basis.
interesting side note, shevette.net has two or three pages concerning what bdsm lovers who have children living in their home.
I don’t really expect this to change your view of bondage that much but maybe it will help you understand the more normal people within the bdsm community a little better than just the extreme cases.
October 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I am a sadomasochist. I’m also female. I greatly enjoy tying men up and tormenting them, and being tied up and tormented. I defend kink.com because while I find them sexist in their treatment of women (but no more so than any other pornography), my kinks are an important, pleasurable part of who I am, which while they involve pain and some bodily damage, are also intense, exciting and playful. I also observe that the picture of the people looking all happy and smiley afterwards is an essential part of the porn and what makes kink.com head and shoulders above much of what’s on the market because it reminds the audience that this is a lot more what elaborate kinky sex looks like in the flesh. It usually involves ‘Wheeee, arrgh!’ and then two hours of talking and cuddling.
The reality is that horrible things happen to humans. Even if we magically eliminated aggression, we can be maimed by an accident or fall ill. Victim or victimizer, this is trauma. To fetishize people in a state of absolute despair is a valid coping technique, and to fetishize your own despair and fear, just as much. Kink is not sacred and should be criticized, kink.com less so and full of problems, but I know through personal experience that the ‘Arrrgh, oh no!’ of kinky sex is like an adult game of cops and robbers or the screaming terror of an amusement park ride. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but on the other hand at least the tendency for over analysis makes kink a great place to deal with the darker parts of being human. Kink.com allows me to examine scary, scary things that experts are putting on display for me, in an environment where I know that the models are safe. Like many kinked people, while I am turned on by unkindness, masturbating to genuine torture of a non-consenting person would feel unethical. That being said, being able to orgasm over something that terrifies the hell out of you leaves you feeling pretty powerful, and by terrify, I mean both my weakness to abuse by others and my own capacity to be hurtful.
What does make me feel degraded and debased is not forceful but constrained violence in the bedroom, but knowing that people dismiss me as a pervert and a problem, or a nut case.
November 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM
yeah, there are plenty of dark places on the net like this. the one which most disgusted me is called rape board. just google it if you want to end up puking and/ or going on a killing spree and/ or having a breakdown. i dont even know where to start on what is wrong with these sites.
November 4, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Oh wow, Phalene here above me seems to have spectacularly missed the point. Only have time for one question right now- how exactly is torture on these sites different from real torture, if the women involved don’t actually want to be. And don’t give me bullshit about them all being fetishists, because we both know that it is exactly that.
November 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
This whole BDSM thingy is crap. Seriously, anyone who likes being hit and cut and harmed is mentally ill. Why is it called self-harm (a horrible, life-sucking addiction to be sure) when you do it to yourself, but when others do it to you it’s “liberating” or “empowering”? It’s just fucking sick.
Defenders of this crap, please research abuse and coping methods for it. People convince themselves that they like abuse so they can deal with the reality of it. Victims often seek out places in which to re-enact the abuse which is probably why these folks keep coming back to it.
Oh and 9-D, you pwn.
January 7, 2010 at 4:09 PM
I wouldn’t say ‘mentally ill’, as I don’t think that coping mechanisms are a sign of ‘mental illness’, but rather a sign of the attempt to survive. I don’t think that counts as ‘illness’, and I think that using terms such as ‘illness’ serves to stigmatise women for their desires. (I say this as a former self-harmer with a ‘mental illness’)
What we need to do, in my not-humble opinion, is to consider all sexual desires in relation the hierarchical patriarchal society in which we live. Women adapt to this society, and masochism is one way of adapting. Feelings and desires are not in themselves anything to be ashamed of, and no woman need feel ashamed for her reactions to patriarchal culture and sexuality.
The male creators of such a sexuality, in which pain and degradation are defined as what women want and deserve, should be ashamed of themselves. Those men who inflict harm on women in the name of their dicks should be ashamed. Those men who think women are to be used in pornography and prostitution, who enable and contribute to such abuses, should be ashamed.
It is men who need to change their behaviour. Men. At the risk of alienating many of my audience, I’m going to quote Andrea Dworkin on this: “If you have a conception of freedom that includes the existence of rape, you are wrong.”
Full speech here: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html
January 7, 2010 at 4:11 PM
I possibly ‘jumped’ a little in my last comment from a discussion of ‘mental illness’ and BDSM to the issues of freedom and rape. Might be best to treat the three paragraphs as seperate discussions to some extent.
January 8, 2010 at 5:57 PM
Imaginary-
BDSM and self-harm seem to be unrelated. I’ve summarized the research, insofar as I can find it, here:
http://kinkresearch.blogspot.com/2010/01/self-harm.html
This is not to say, of course, that BDSM is liberating or empowering, but I don’t think many people do make such a claim. (I am aware that a few people do, but I don’t think it’s the major discourse that critics make it out to be.)
Rather, I hear peple claiming that self-aware, consensual, sexual self-expression is liberating and empowering. Even if it involves BDSM.
January 9, 2010 at 2:47 PM
I couldn’t find any research on whether or not they’re related (as in stemming from a common cause) or not in a cursory Google. But I did find this piece, which I recommend.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/oct/17/religion-ethics
January 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM
The most comprehensive work on self-harm I can find is this:
Walsh, B.W.; Rosen, P.M. (1988) Self-Mutilation: Theory, Research, and Treatment. New York, Guilford Press.
They review a zillion studies, and they spend a lot of time looking at self-harm in relationship to sexual identity. Nowhere do they suggest a correlation with BDSM. And I can’t find any other studies–in the self-harm literature or the BDSM literature–that do, either.
January 10, 2010 at 6:49 PM
Where they looking for a correlation with BDSM though Orlando? If they weren’t looking for one, it’s very unlikely they’d have found one.
Anecdotally, people I’ve know who are into BDSM have also self harmed. But that’s just anecdotal.
January 10, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Anecdotally, many people who used to self harm, who I know, stopped self harming once they became involved in a Dominant/submissive or Owner/slave relationship, as no Dominant or Owner will tolerate that sort of behavior.
January 10, 2010 at 11:24 PM
“no Dominant or Owner will tolerate that sort of behavior.”
Oh well that’s okay then! [sarcasm]
I fail to see how subjection to the arbitrary will of another is an improvement on self-harm.
I’m sorry, but this is just sick. (Referring to *THIS* sentiment, not BDSM practictioners)
January 10, 2010 at 11:54 PM
Okay, I’ve cooled down a little.
The point is not to stop someone self-harming at any cost. The point is to deal with the underlying problems that cause someone to self-harm (assuming that the self-harm is not life-threatening in itself). Forbidding someone from self-harm is no answer at all. An ‘owner’ or ‘dominant’ (this language is vile, I feel sick to my stomach just typing the very words) forbidding the self-harm and then harming the sufferer in place of that is quite frankly unconscionable. In fact, I’d say manipulative and exploitative of that person’s problems.
And yes, I’ve been there. This is not academic for me. Hence my fury at this.
January 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM
Laurelin – That one got me too. I nearly posted something like, “Well, we’ve got a cure for self-harm! Just find you a dom!”
January 11, 2010 at 12:32 AM
“as no Dominant or Owner will tolerate that sort of behavior.”
Was that intended as an attack, or a defense, of BDSM?
January 11, 2010 at 4:00 AM
Hi Laurelin,
“The point is not to stop someone self-harming at any cost. The point is to deal with the underlying problems that cause someone to self-harm (assuming that the self-harm is not life-threatening in itself).”
I totally agree. What keeps being missed here, is that BOTH people in a D/s or M/s relationship get something out of the relationship, or they wouldn’t be in it. As a self harmer, I didn’t know how to deal with the underlying issues, and until my significant other got me the help I needed, simply ordering me to stop did stop me. Yes, get the help, but in the meantime, simply being ordered to stop, for me, and for many others, was enough that the behavior stopped. THEN the issues could be dealt with.
In working with others who self mutilate who are not involved in a D/s or M/s relationship, there is no way to stop them, while they deal with the underlying issues…..and the other thing that keeps getting missed, too, in all these discussions, is that many of us are deeply in love with our significant other. Whether that partner be dominant or submissive, many of us are deeply in love, and in committed, long term…..loving relationships. I don’t go around telling people who to fuck or how to fuck, and, I, along with many others, would appreciate the same respect. :-)
“Forbidding someone from self-harm is no answer at all.”
Actually, as a stop gap measure, it is, or it was for me, and has been for others that I know as well.
“An ‘owner’ or ‘dominant’ (this language is vile, I feel sick to my stomach just typing the very words) forbidding the self-harm and then harming the sufferer in place of that is quite frankly unconscionable.”
We shun that which we do not understand, so, I can understand that the language would be upsetting to you. However, to discuss topics thoroughly, it is important to use the appropriate language, otherwise we’d just be talking in circles….wouldn’t we?
On to your point about the dominant “harming” the submissive. In a consensual relationship, as has been stated here, on this blog, repeatedly, “harm” is not the goal of a dominant. I am a masochist, so, I enjoy pain, as in I am an endorphine junky, and the rush I get from the endorphines from pain both provide a high for me, AND they are sexually arousing. I am not this way because anyone TOLD me to be this way. This is how my body and brain are hardwired.
I made mention in a post that never showed up here, about a program on the National Geographic channel called “Humanly Impossible”, or words to that effect. On one episode, they discuss a contortionist, and a woman who is into being hung by hooks inserted into her back flesh. They actually had electrodes and measuring devices attached to her, and measured her body responses during being lifted and then swung. The releasing of endorphines, pheromones, and dopamine actually gave her a high from the activity, not unlike those of us who are masochists who enjoy BDSM play.
“In fact, I’d say manipulative and exploitative of that person’s problems.”
And I can understand that you don’t see what I see, because you don’t have the exposure to it that I do, and that others who have attempted to explain our lifestyle, have. I get that, and I’m not belittling, just letting you know that I DO understand where you are coming from, because I was there, where you are, once upon a time.
Most, not all, but “most” dominants, are concerned about their submissives and don’t want to injure them or harm them. If they did harm them, then, the submissive wouldn’t come back, so, “harming” a submissive is really something that is frowned upon, quite heavily, within our communities. Are there asshole dominants? Sure, then again, there are assholes in all walks of life. You can just as readily find a user of their partner in a vanilla, or non-BDSM relationship, as you can in a safe, sane, consensual BDSM relationship.
“And yes, I’ve been there. This is not academic for me. Hence my fury at this”
I understand, and I’ve been there, too, hence my fury at people attempting to tell me that they know what is best for me, and that I’m too stupid to make my own decisions as to how I want to live my life. :-) It’s a two way street.
I wish you well, and I hope that what you’ve been through….that you managed to get the help that you needed for it, as I did….and that you have a loving, helpful partner, as I did, who is supportive and nurturing of you while you heal.
bella
January 11, 2010 at 4:02 AM
To isme:
I said: “as no Dominant or Owner will tolerate that sort of behavior.”
isme said: “Was that intended as an attack, or a defense, of BDSM?”
Neither. It was intended to be a statement of truth based on my experiences, both as a submissive, a cutter, and a peer mentor.
January 11, 2010 at 4:31 AM
Bella –
I also have known people who stopped self-harming when they got into BDSM. But I think some of the way we kinky folks often try to act as if our activities and relationships are especially healing is kind of… wrong. I’ve seen bad and good relationships of all kinds. I don’t think we’re more prone to have good ones. I just think that this pervasive idea that we’re more prone to have BAD ones is stupid at best and vicious, bigoted, and mean-spirited at worst.
Yeah, I try to be something positive in the life of my partner. to the degree that I can (which, IMO, is no greater than anyone else anyway.) But I’d want our relationship to be good for him (and me!) whether I happened to be dominant or not.
January 11, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Bella-
I appreciate your good wishes towards me and I wish you all the best as well.
I would prefer it if you *didn’t* start telling me what I do/ do not understand. I find it patronising, and extremely presumptive. I do not assume you do not *understand* what I say because you disagree with me, and I would appreciate the same courtesy.
Similarly, I have not told you how to fuck/ how not to fuck. Other people’s sex lives are of no concern to me. I am, however, critical of BDSM and will continue to be; this is *not* the same as telling people what to do.
I know all about the endorphin stuff, by the way, I’ve heard it many times before. I personally do not believe that the presence of an endorphin rush negates harm.
You seem to have a lot of faith in the BDSM community to police its members and prevent abuse; I am less optimistic. As there are (as you say) plenty of ‘vanilla’ abusers, I see no reason why the BDSMers would be somehow naturally immune. Particularly since there is so much more scope for abuse in a relationship which revolves around erotcising dominance and submission. I know of many women who have been abused in BDSM relationships, and I know how damaging the dynamic can be.
I often come across online as arrogant and obnoxious. I get that, and to a certain extent, I am both of those things. But I speak from a place of pain, I speak of the things I know, and speaking is a necessity for me (as it is for many of us, no doubt).
Best wishes,
L
January 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Polly- Yes, Walsh and Rosen discuss a number of studies that are specifically focused on the relationship between self-harm and the development of sexual identity. Across the aisle, there are a handful of studies looking at kinky people and trying to find any sign of comorbidity with other deviant behavior, including self-harm.
All of this is a wash. Even the comparison seems weak: self-harm is almost never seen as an erotic event, whereas BDSM almost always is. Self-inflicted injuries are frequently used to draw attention; BDSM-related injuries are usually concealed. Etc.
If there’s research out there that suggests otherwise, I’m very interested in it. But I’m not so interested in hearing “yeah, but I knew these two dudes one time.” From either side of the debate.
January 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Self-inflicted injuries are frequently used to draw attention
No, that’s men’s reason for unleashing their emotions onto others, thereby forcing others to pay attention to them.
Your ignorant impugning of self harmers as vain manipulators is a charge often aimed at self-harming women but rarely at other-harming men.
January 11, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Orlando-
‘Self-inflicted injuries are frequently used to draw attention’
This statement of ignorance and cruelty shows how you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. show some respect and educate yourself.
I was a self-harmer. I suggest you never make such a vile and outrageous statement in my presence.
Fuck you.
January 11, 2010 at 11:35 PM
iasal- thank you for your excellent comment. I know it’s nothing to do with me personally, but thank you for saying it. It means a lot to me.
January 12, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Because this hasn’t been said often enough: if one thinks heterosex is tied to power, one can raise objections to this without advocating against sex itself or proposing a no-heterosex solution. No reasonable person these days would say that all sex is bad; talk about a piñata argument with sex toys for a prize!
I know it is too late to save these Ancient Undead Threads of Doom (TM) from all the bickering, though some of the wit and productive discussion is impressive, but we seem to have lost sight altogether of the not-so-individualistic reasons to react badly to kink.com. Maybe my summary will help someone who is not caught up on comments on this and other entries about porn. There are too many things people are taking personally here, and once one commenter makes it personal, others keep it so! Because there are implications on people’s personal lifestyles, I think we have three main ideas where we should have one:
1. Porn as it affects consumers (usually male) and their relationships (usually with women). ND has explained her views on this in several different posts. Assuming porn increases misogyny, it follows that BDSM porn is even worse than mainstream porn. That’s what this post was about, yes? But then there’s the separate issue people seem to prefer to talk about (apparently it affects more readers personally), which is:
2. Exploitation of women as sex workers. Here’s where all the anecdotes seem to come in on the posts about mainstream porn. Everyone agrees that this is bad when it is coerced, especially BDSM porn. People disagree and are vitriolic about whether it’s always exploitation; “radfems” question whether it’s a good idea because it reinforces negative stereotypes, which sex workers take personally as if they’re being slut-shamed, presumably because they get a lot of that already; this inevitably attracts personal and unreasonable replies.
Since it’s kinky BDSM porn, people react personally again to implications about:
3. BDSM and kink in private lives. This adds a set of people who are affected personally, and they have to take the feminist criticism of M/f along with the fact that society does condemn explicitly unequal relationships even as it may encourage the unspoken inequalities. 9-2 would like to single out M/f BDSM and examine its source as a general phenomenon, and I understand why, but BDSM itself has a community. I would imagine that to this community it seems just as unnatural to separate out M/f from other BDSM as it seems unnatural to radfems to separate M/f BDSM from mainstream misogyny. I would like to know (see below) if the BDSM community can tell the difference between M/f BDSM and plain old misogyny redirected as BDSM; I suspect people who understand BDSM can. In this case at least the theory may be reconciled even if the practice cannot.
Can we agree on somewhere else to do the parts that /aren’t/ theories about the effects of BDSM PORN on society?
That said, I can’t resist asking for more personal anecdotes to put in such a place, or more likely here. Something must be wrong with me! My excuse is that I have limited options as a guest on 9-2′s blog other than to comment or beg her to open a new post, and I don’t have the time and energy to do all the research 9-2 has done in order to make my own blog and find an audience. Plus I’m a fence-sitter on the personal issues (the porn ones are discussed more elsewhere), have changed my mind about 8 times on this thread depending on levels of irrational vs. good points. Here goes.
1. You who are into BDSM by choice, orientation, and so on: do you feel that there are men who use BDSM as an excuse to be overtly misogynist? If such are at all common, I would think that in defending your community you would want to explicitly reject them. I know that actual abusers get kicked out, but I also know submissives who claim to be able to recognize dominants by something in their voice or behavior; so I ask you, subjectively, are there men who are really just posing as dominants in order to treat women like trash? What about women who are really man-haters, and so on? I understand that this is not what BDSM is about, but I want to know if it is actually being co-opted as much as I suspect and what can be done about that. I am also aware of the difference between BDSM sex and a BDSM lifestyle, which I would guess would divide the BDSM community itself.
2. delphyne and others who have spoken vehemently against BDSM in private (presumably in sex or in life). It’s not my business, but since it is yours: do you know any submissive who is or was continually frustrated because s/he cannot practice BDSM with his/her partner, because of incompatibility or because s/he is unable to justify such actions? Or anyone who is into BDSM and spends lots of time trying to work out the morals inherent? I ask because delphyne does not seem at all willing to entertain the notion that BDSM can be an orientation/preference/need separate from whatever society inculcates, and while it’s none of my business I would think that one who got to know BDSM people might be more understanding. But then again, I do not have women friends who have been in abusive relationships (as far as I know!), and haven’t even heard about friends of friends in abusive BDSM relationships; perhaps if I did I would place a much higher priority on that than on anyone’s sexual needs.
January 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Whoops, I missed Claire Adams’ comment which gets at the sorts of distinctions I was asking about. Sorry. (Whee, intra-page links, may they send the search-engine spiders into neverending fits if ND allows this comment!)
January 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM
Orlando,
If we’re ignoring “I knew this one guy” anecdata, can we also get rid of the “self-harming to get attention” bullshit? Or at least cite sources if we have to give that bullshit pride of place?
I’m on your side in the larger debate, but as an ex-self-injurer… that just made you look completely lacking in credibility. Do all the people who wear long sleeves in summer “want attention?” Do they think others have X-ray vision and will rush to coddle them?
WTF. Serious, serious WTF.
January 15, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Iasal, Laurelin, Trinity-
Gee. I said “frequently,” not all the time, not this-is-the-etiology-of-cutting. And I’ve already cited my sources; there are quite a few other studies at the British Medical Journal, which is free online.
I work with a lot of “at-risk” youth. Many of them self-harm that I’m aware of, and I’m aware of it because they show me scars and talk to me about it. All of the studies I’ve read are corroborated by my experience working with this group: a number of adolescents have specifically said to me that they are aware of cutting themselves partially in order to get attention. I have no doubt that other teens I work with cut themselves for other reasons, and I’m not aware of it. Laurelin, I am assuming you would have fallen into that category.
The point I hoped to make is that this is quite a different pattern from BDSM. Even in spaces like 9/2′s website, where the critiques of BDSM fly around pretty freely, we don’t hear anyone saying “masochists just want to get attention by having bruised butts,” or whatnot. Yet this is the go-to critique of self-harm in popular culture, and as far as I can tell it is supported to a considerable extent in the research, as well.
January 15, 2010 at 10:02 PM
‘Frequently’ is also incorrect. And no, I don’t give a shit about your ‘studies’. I know from life. I know from other self-harmers.
Next time you say something offensive and deeply hurt others, try apologising and changing your behaviour instead. That is an act of courage and integrity.
January 15, 2010 at 10:27 PM
I’d also like to point out that I am fully aware that I sound self-righteous in my last comment. I no longer care.
And *never* place me into any ‘category’, thanks.
January 15, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Was that intended as an attack, or a defense, of BDSM?
I snorted with laughter! Bad Polly…
January 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM
And I didn’t kwow these two dudes. I knew a few women. But I never claimed anecdotes were anything other than anecdotes.
Unlike some, who extrapolate from the particular to the general as if it’s as natural as breathing.
January 15, 2010 at 11:30 PM
Know even, damn typos
January 15, 2010 at 11:46 PM
“do you feel that there are men who use BDSM as an excuse to be overtly misogynist? If such are at all common, I would think that in defending your community you would want to explicitly reject them.”
Misogyny and male supremacy is neither specific to nor under-represented in people who are into BDSM. Which is to say, of course kinky men (and women) are misogynist and male supremacist. Misogyny and white male supremacy is imprinted on people across the board. “Defending” people who may like some of the same sex things that I like makes no more sense to me than non-kinky hetero women going around bleating about how great and “feminist” their boyfriends/husbands are. It’s fine if others want to spend their time that way, but I’m certainly not going to.
January 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM
Laurelin, I am sincerely sorry, and I deeply apologize, for making you upset. That was not my intention. I was responding to Imaginary, who specifically asked “defenders of this crap,” meaning BDSM, to research self-harm. That is something I’ve done, both in my professional life and in my reading. My own experience is working with several hundred teenagers over several years. I am also citing Walsh and Rosen’s metastudy, along with Howard Meltzer’s book, and a substantial literature at the BMJ. There is a substantial literature in the working-with-teens genre as well, but I don’t find it very compelling, so I won’t bother to cite it.
If you don’t give a shit about those studies, great. Cool. Obviously it isn’t my business whether you do or not: there are for sure lots of studies I don’t give a shit about. But if I am asked to demonstrate that I’ve “researched” something, I’m going to respond with citations, yes?
Again…I’m sorry to have upset you. I understand that if the issue of self-harm is personal to you, this discussion is emotionally charged. The comparison of kink to pathology (which is Imaginary’s comparison, not mine) is charged and emotional for me. I hope we do not piss each other off unneccesarily.
January 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM
I appreciate the apology, Orlando.
January 16, 2010 at 12:35 AM
*Change of subject from self-harm*
I have to say that the seemingly obsessive need to be validated in one’s sexual behaviour is bizarre to me. If someone were to criticise what I do in bed*, I would not feel compelled to tell them why what I do is just fine and lovely and I like it and stop judging me, etc. It wouldn’t phase me.
Now if someone criticises me in such a way and I feel the urge to lash out, or otherwise feel uneasy, I assume that their criticism is something that I need to think about (and I do). When I am defensive, I ask myself why. What insecurity or doubt has been uncovered? When perfectly comfortable in what I’m doing, I don’t *need* anyone else’s validation.
The validation I need is that inside me. The inner voice. If I find myself needing external validation (for anything, sex or whatevs), I ask myself why. (There can be many many reasons).
*if you criticise me for eating biscuits in bed, I will concede that you are right to condemn me. Crums everywhere, a bloody bad habit! But then, I am a slob.
January 16, 2010 at 2:00 AM
(parts of this comment may be triggering)
Orlando –
Okay, I sit corrected. You working with hundreds of teens means you know many more self-injurers than I do. I was going off of the post to your blog, which as I read it not only listed attention-seeking as one of many factors but also as I remember it said the attention-seeking part is often tied to subcultures, like, say, Goths or punks.
What I have heard self-injury is, and I don’t have studies to cite here but I’m thinking of books like Trauma and Recovery and articles I’ve seen, is that it’s something common in people who have experienced abuse or have PTSD. Usually I’ve seen it linked with two things: one, feeling one’s own body has been made unclean/has been stained by the trauma and trying to purify or punish it through injuring it (this was part of my own motivation) ; and two, finding that for some reason (endorphins? it’s not clear to me) self-injury actually feels good or soothing or calming, and that experience of feeling calm becomes a coping device.
I have never seen “attention seeking” listed as a reason, and in fact I’ve heard a lot of people talk about feeling that it’s about “attention” being a negative stereotype. If people wanted others to notice how far out they are or think they’re cool, why would they, say, wear long sleeves in summer to cover cuts or scars? The Goth or punk community point might in some cases be an exception to this — a ritual of group membership, a “look how cool I am,” etc. — but the older professional who never wears T-shirts seems to me to be something else again.
And I am probably just misreading your comment, but it seems like you’re saying you don’t know the reasons your clients self-harm, other than attention. Do you just mean people who don’t tell you attention is the reason are rare, or do you mean you don’t know for large swaths of the people you help? If the latter, I find that a bit confusing, as I’d think it would be your business to understand.
January 16, 2010 at 2:21 PM
“The comparison of kink to pathology (which is Imaginary’s comparison, not mine) is charged and emotional for me.”
As someone who has practiced BDSM and who is aroused by kink, I have no objections to SM being thought of, or called, a pathology. I consider my arousal caused by kink to be a pathology. I fully believe my arousal to kink is a pathology. I fully believe that when I engage in SM, I am engaging in manifesting that pathology outside myself.
The fact that my kinkiness is pathological does not make me a horrible, terrible, awful person. It just makes makes me a person whose sexuality has been completely warped by being raised in a patriarchal society. Something that I believe that we have all suffered from to some extent or another.
January 16, 2010 at 11:37 PM
Faith: presactly.
The word ‘pathological’ is much misused, as is the word ‘psychotic’.
January 17, 2010 at 12:59 AM
Trinity-
Sorry I was unclear. What I’m trying to say is that I work with teens for whom an element of cutting (or burning) is leaving visible marks that will signal (something) either to their peers or to adults: either because they’re left uncovered; they’re directly shown off; or the efforts to hide them fail in ways that seem so predictible as to be intentional. I don’t think that’s the reason they cut: as you say, the reasons they articulate mostly have to do with catharsis, or with exploring their own boundaries in some way. But for some chunk of teens, the signalling function of scars is also useful, and occasionally a major element of the behavior.
I am aware that there are other teens (and adults) who self-harm but have no interest in anyone else knowing about it. I know that from the literature, but also because I’ve seen kids who had cut and had adults discover the scars in ways that that they were very, very upset about…often leading to tragic, fucked-up interventions. But I have to acknowledge that I have no real idea how common this is, because I assume that I’d hardly ever know if someone cuts and wants to hide it. Right?
Laurelin-
It’s cool that you don’t feel a need to defend your sexuality (which I have no idea what it is) from criticism. But it also sounds a wee bit privileged, no? Just because one person feels secure enough that they don’t need to respond to critics doesn’t mean that everyone else does. Moreover, this thread, 550 comments ago, begins with a “triple-dog-dare” to defend kink.com, which neccesarily includes a defense of BDSM. And Imaginary then demands that we do the research and educate ourselves. However insecure it may be, I am responding to requests.
Peace, Orlando
January 17, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Orlando,
I do see what you mean. still, I’m not sure I’m convinced you’re correct. I think we can have an issue and want people to help without “seeking help” being part of why we have the issue. For example, at one point in my life I had persistent suicidal ideation. I quickly told people about it, because I didn’t want to want to die.
But that doesn’t mean that I was saying “I keep thinking of suicide” because I couldn’t think of another way to alert people to my pain. I was seeking help — making it obvious I had a problem — because I wanted to fight the part of me that could only sleep by thinking of not waking up.
So to go back to the making scars obvious part of it, I do think it’s the case that many people fail to hide self-harm because they actually want support and help. I just don’t think that that necessarily means they’re self-harming for attention. In some cases it may mean that on some level (“well, maybe you’ll help me if you see this agony on my skin, you unobservant idiot”) but in some cases it may be more along the lines of “I do this for X reason; I make sure you know I did it for Y reason.”
Does that clear things up any?
January 17, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Orlando,
I feel like you must not understand what privilege actually is, to frame non-defensiveness as a privilege.
For real does everything have to go bugshit on the internet?
Maybe if my fellow perverts (and well-meaning self-appointed allies) stopped acting like there was such a thing as “non kink sexuality privilege” and stopped insisting that kink IS TOO more egalitarian and less oppression-y than what gets called “vanilla” sexuality, maybe people would be too busy going about their business, not caring what others do in the sack, to be bothered with a “wait, what? are you kidding?”
There IS something about some kinky people and their need for validation. I would add that it’s my observation that there are also non-kinky people (although god help us all it mostly seems to be fucking women) who need validation for their non-kinky sex-having-ness as well. Hence an endless supply of “I love push up bras and deep throating and it’s unfeminist for you to critique either one!” missives on the internet.
Every single BDSM related media that I’ve ever seen promotes female subjugation and male supremacy as the sexiest thing that ever could happen to anybody. The presence of other pairings – female tops and female bottoms, female tops and male bottoms, billy goats and people they like to butt off mountain sides – does not mitigate the fact that the majority of BDSM imagery is about female people submitting to male people and being hurt. The fact that people who are into BDSM may experience pleasure through sensations and experiences that other people would identify as strictly painful also does not mitigate the blueprint of what’s happening.
Someone living in a small midwest town where they can’t go out in full leathers to their heart’s content, leading their “slave” around on a leash, is no more oppressed than someone whose desire to suck cock in the middle of a restaurant is also unwelcome. And if you’re living on either coast, shame the fuck on you if you ever pretend like kink isn’t wholly accepted and even encouraged.
January 17, 2010 at 7:34 PM
and on the original topic of this post –
the depiction of non-consent (looking terrified and unwilling for instance, looking like you’re NOT enjoying it) is part of what the turn on is, and that is problematic, end of story. Me not wanting to feel like a horrible person, for the fact that I do actually have an arousal response to the depiction of non-consent in some consensual kink porn, does not make that dynamic a freedom enhancing development for human kind. I don’t get why that’s so taboo to acknowledge.
I actually am glad if the women who make any kind of porn that makes me personally uncomfortable are actually happy doing it, even if I can’t relate to that. I mean I much prefer that to them really being miserable but faking okay-ness.
But my point is in line with what others have said – kink.com and kink porn in general would not sell if *all* it depicted was female people smiling and whooping it up – supposedly exhibiting their “real” feelings about the domination and torment they’re willingly submitting to – and believable distress and suffering were left out of the picture. That is shitty and misogynist. Bunches of people being turned on by it and not-being serial killers or “bad people” does not make it non-shitty and non-misogynist.
lastly, this disjointed point: I don’t think making the practice of bdsm in one’s personal life illegal is a solution to anything, so it bugs me that that’s the case in the UK. If for no other reason than it actually feels like an empty gesture to me – rape is illegal everywhere, presumably, and it has affected women-getting-raped not one whit.
January 17, 2010 at 7:36 PM
Joan,
Whoa. For someone accusing someone else about being defensive, that little “tend to the log in your own eye first” parable might be a good thing to pay attention to.
I don’t think Orlando’s point is “if you’re not defensive, you have privilege.” I think the point is that “you’re so defensive, therefore we must be right” is a frequent tactic of those who have the upper hand. And that because of this, Orlando (and I, as well) find it bad form to ask “Hey, why’d you step up to our double-dog-dare? You must not be secure in yourself!”
If I double-dog-dared radical feminists to defend themselves on my LJ, some would show up. Would that mean they’re really not sure they’re right? Nope.
And I have no idea who you know who sucks cock in restaurants, and also have absolutely no idea why you seem to imply I’d be any less disgusted by such nonsense than you are.
January 17, 2010 at 7:37 PM
You’d rather it sexuality resembled Middle/Real America?
January 17, 2010 at 8:06 PM
Trinity-
What I said was “self-inflicted injuries are frequently used to draw attention.” I’m not saying that that’s the purpose of self-harm. Just that it is a frequently associated pattern for some kinds of self-harm. And….I think….we agree about this(?)
JK-
I said it sounded privileged, and it does sound privileged. I’m male, right? Let’s say I piss a woman off. And than I tell her that she’s only angry at me because woman are irrational and hyper-emotional. And she explains to me that this is offensive bullshit, and then provides studies to back up her point.
I then say “well, shucks, it doesn’t bother me if you complain about men; why are you so sensitive?” That is 180-proof male privilege, yes?
And this sounds similar.
Moreover, JK, kink is not “wholly accepted and encouraged.” Do you realize that probably less than 15% of kinky people in the US are fully “out?” That no kinky person has ever won a child custody case vs. a non-kinky ex? That family courts have told kinky women they could not hire any lawyer who did not go through special awareness training to understand that BDSM is abuse?
These are trivial issues, by the scale of the nation, but they are not trivial for the people involved. They are not some straw man about walking people on a leash in the grocery store.
I live on the East Coast. I would almost certainly lose my job if I was out of the closet. My wife and I hope to adopt, and–again–our chances of being approved by a home study would be nearly zero if we were out of the closet. Yes?
(Read more here: http://kinkresearch.blogspot.com/2009/10/stigma.html)
January 17, 2010 at 8:52 PM
9/2 sought a defence of kink.com. I can’t claim to be a huge fan of bdsm, but nor do I find it as strongly distasteful as she does. At the end of the day, it’s pornography-it deals in the realm of fantasy. It’s a legitimate business, which brings many people (men AND women) pleasure, and keeps what is undoubtedly a subculture with huge scope for physical and psychological abuse operating in legal daylight, under very close scrutiny. The argument that it corrupts/distorts people’s perceptions of sex is clearly flawed; not only does this imply a proscriptive notion of sexuality (which must inherently be a product of the patriarchy in which it was formed, whether by a radfem woman or sadist man) but it also ignores the fact that anyone who allows themselves to believe that the stuff at kink.com is indicative of any kind of real-life relationship ideal is clearly mentally fucked already (as Claire Adams said, this is soap opera bdsm, not real-life). And those kind of people will always find something to help rationalise their sickness, whether or not kink continues to produce types of porn that prove so divisive. At any rate, the distortion argument is supported by very little genuinely unbiased, scientific research, and as a man who has in the past watched porn, but remains resolutely anti-misogyny/chauvinism, I find it a rather hard argument to swallow (watching someone eat a hamburger doesn’t make me any more likely to stop being a vegetarian, nor does it make me any more accepting of the meat industry; so I’d personally like to continue believing that people have regency over their choices and actions, and anyone who wilfully sets out to harm another human being in a non-fun, non-consensual way is a sick individual, not a mere victim of corrupting outside influences like porn, drugs and videogames).
Surely it’s better that bdsm porn continues to operate in a heavily-policed industry than gets forced underground, where practices would inevitably become even more offensive and/or destructive? And if not – if the whole bdsm-porn industry were banned today, once and for all – who can propose a viable system for helping to ‘rehabilitate’ the thousands – if not millions – of people who rely on the industry for sexual satisfaction? Do we really think these people would just make do without? Whatever your sexual preference, imagine being TOLD (not asked, persuaded, or deciding of your own volition) that you can never enjoy the sex you like again, then try to answer my previous question. Anyway, that rather oversteps the ‘defence’ I’m trying to give, but it’s surely a point worth making.
January 17, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Orlando – your male privilege comparison does not in fact apply. A feminist woman on the internet saying “the depiction of sex acts that are overtly misogynist in my view bothers me, can anyone explain why it shouldn’t?” and people piping up to say “but but it is only misogynist in your view because you don’t believe in agency and you’re insulting mine!” is nothing at all like a male person getting on a female’s nerves and brushing it off.
Feminist bloggers do not have social or political power over grating internet perverts. Males always already have power in relation to female people, socially and politically.
It may not be *nice* for Laurelin to say “y’all must be insecure to get so upset by someone not liking your kink” but it isn’t privileged.
Your assertions about the oppression of kinky people is also off, to me.
In reported cases where one spouse uses evidence of BDSM inclinations against another to fight a custody case, you may be correct that there has never been a victory for the kinky parent. That is not the same at all as no kinky parents ever winning in custody cases. Nor is it the same thing at all as all those losing-end kinky parents on record actually being people who SHOULD have won custody in the first place.
The “family courts do such and such” is anecdotal. Family courts, courts in general, do operate in anti-female ways all the time on all manner of fronts. That includes against lesbian mothers and “promiscuous” hetero mothers and poor mothers and all kinds of mothers. I do not find your assertion that some family court(s) have been patronizing to female litigants by dictating what lawyers they can or can’t have to be proof that kink is an oppressed orientation. I find it to be anecdotal evidence that supports my overall belief that women get shafted in courts.
You may be at risk of losing your job if you announced to your bosses that you were kinky, or if some public thing happened where you were “outed” by way of either indiscretion on your part or vindictiveness on another’s. That is not the same as kink being an oppressed orientation. There are men, in particular, who are “out” in the sense that they don’t go to lengths to hide it and so it could be found out by prying parties, about being sexually dominant/sadistic with consensual partners, who have been appointed to high level positions in previous administrations in the US. Is that proof that nobody ever gets harassed or harmed for being known to be kinky?
You and I apparently have different ideas of what acceptability and encouragement are, in the public realm. Me, I see advertisements and movies and tv shows and how many cafes in NYC that were kink-themed overtly and fashion and all manner of public-realm shit that does, in fact, position kinkiness as more and more mainstream. More and more acceptable. This is in itself an encouragement.
I see kink porn skewed heavily towards female submission and the depiction of non-consent go unremarked by masses of kinksters, and defended to non kinksters who object to it.
Here’s what does not compute for me. There are things about others’ sexual preferences that can only go unnoticed if people are forced to hide them under threat of harm if found out. Things like whether your partner is a male or a female or is multiple people or a child or an animal, etc.
There are things that only come to other people’s attention when direct action is taken on someone’s part to put it out there. Things like enjoying cocksucking, or doggie style, or spanking, or tying people up, or getting tortured.
There are things that come to light by direct action on some people’s parts but which are none the less not mainstream public domain. Chat rooms, photographs of oneself, even filming sexual acts, if and when those materials are obviously designated as being for lesbians, gay men, kinky people, etc.
I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable for someone to fire or deny parental rights to someone solely based on the consensual sex they’re having with others. I don’t like that that happens. I don’t believe at all that it is as black and white as you imply in your assertions.
I am quite familiar with kink-positive research and writing and opinions. It is irritating to me as a non-comatose person who sees what I see, to be expected to believe that domination and submission is actually unacceptable and a persecuted proclivity. Particularly as practiced by dominant hetero males and submissive hetero women.
I would not recommend that Nine Deuce go check out kink sites, or ever try to understand any of it, or most non-kinky people doing the same. The fact that something named “kink.com” is as extreme as it is and as geared towards female subjugation – consensual or otherwise – as it is does say something. Because it’s not called “extremekink.com” or “cumsluts.com” or “tortureher.com.” It’s called kink.com. And it is, in fact, extreme. And someone living in a culture where BDSM is more and more mainstreamed is obviously going to come across it in the every day, as we all do, and I don’t know what the *defense* is of orgasmic misogyny – why not say the truth, that this turns me/you/us on and you shouldn’t look at it because it will upset you and you’re free to object to it on anti-misogyny grounds just like I’m free to keep doing it. Because we are free to keep doing it. No defense needed.
January 17, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Joan –
Might be wise not to position yourself as “non-comatose” and insinuate that the rest of us are.
You feel overwhelmed by images showing female submission. I yawn. Doesn’t mean either of us is comatose; simply means we disagree on how much this matters.
Which is, I think, the crux of all this and why our two “sides” will never agree. You see a veritable assault from which eminently moldable girls and women ought to be better protected; we see vaguely annoying sexist stuff that’s not so great, but think most of the world is like that anyway and thus scratch our heads at why pornography aimed at a particular subset of people should warrant such special concern.
January 18, 2010 at 12:05 AM
“It’s cool that you don’t feel a need to defend your sexuality (which I have no idea what it is) from criticism. But it also sounds a wee bit privileged, no?”
Oy.
Yes, Orlando, believing that I have been severely damaged by patriarchal society to the extent that I am aroused by my own subjugation is such an overwhelming privilege.
“If I double-dog-dared radical feminists to defend themselves on my LJ, some would show up. Would that mean they’re really not sure they’re right? Nope.”
Orlando was responding to me, correct? I personally can’t recall double-dog-daring anyone.
January 18, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Joan-
I did not say that kinky people were an oppressed class. I didn’t say they were persecuted. You said that kink was “wholly accepted and even encouraged,” and I disagreed with that claim, citing particular counter-examples and giving you a link to a bunch more. That’s all.
While we’re at it, I also haven’t said that kink is inherently liberating, feminist, democratic, egalitarian, or good for acne. In fact, I come up short trying to find any authors who do make those assertions. I’m sure they exist. People talk crazy shit. But if this is supposed to be some underpinning discourse of BDSM apologetics, I am left wondering where to find it.
Also, I am having trouble with your saying “Every single BDSM related media that I’ve ever seen promotes female subjugation and male supremacy” and then “I am quite familiar with kink-positive research and writing and opinions.”
Let me assure you that if you’ve never seen BDSM media that doesn’t promote female subjugation, you are not as familiar with kink opinions as you seem to think.
Let m
January 18, 2010 at 12:14 AM
Faith —
The point was, there’s a bit of moving the goalposts involved in:
ND: DARE YA TO DEFEND YER PORN!
Us: Er, well, [comments].
Others: BDSM in general is [stuff].
Us: Er, well, not really. [comments].
Others: Sheeze. What is with these kinky people and their need to defend themselves?
Yeah, ND specifically was talking about porn, not kink generally. But we’re not the only ones who moved on to the basic source and experience of BDSM itself, so it hardly seems sensible that someone would call us thin-skinned in comments to a post that dared us to show up to defend something.
I don’t really think ND was testing us and secretly going “…heh heh, if they answer at all I have proof they’re paranoid!”
January 18, 2010 at 12:15 AM
As for that dare thing, let’s be serious. I think it’s a lot easier to defend the idea that gender roles hurt people (the basis of radical feminism in my estimation) than to defend torture porn. Women’s liberation is undoubtedly a worthy goal. Your freedom to wank to women in cages being poked with cattle prods, on the other hand, is harder to depict as essential to human progress.
January 18, 2010 at 12:18 AM
ND –
You seem to be insinuating that something is only OK if it contributes to social progress somehow, which is silly. I don’t know that you mean that, as I’ve seen you say otherwise before, but your last comment sure sounds like you just said it.
January 18, 2010 at 12:23 AM
“we see vaguely annoying sexist stuff that’s not so great, but think most of the world is like that anyway and thus scratch our heads at why pornography aimed at a particular subset of people should warrant such special concern.”
I’m really quite sure that feminists – radical or otherwise – spend time being concerned about many forms of sexism other than SM porn. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you might wish to consider the possibility that you are projecting your own defensiveness and insecurity out onto the feminists that apparently irritate you so badly. I, for instance, haven’t encountered a single feminist who seems to believe that SM porn is the end all be all of patriarchy. I’m really quite sure that there is a lot more to it than that.
January 18, 2010 at 12:25 AM
No, I’m not. I’m responding to Orlando’s comment about asking radical feminists to justify their views. Sorry, but that’s already been done about 6 million times.
January 18, 2010 at 12:28 AM
“Let me assure you that if you’ve never seen BDSM media that doesn’t promote female subjugation, you are not as familiar with kink opinions as you seem to think.”
Do you have any idea at all who Joan Kelly is?
January 18, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Faith –
I really don’t think I was that unclear, but on the off chance I was:
I’m not saying that feminists (of any stripe) think Kink.com is the most important issue they face. Or even that porn is. I don’t think that. But what I do see in comments like yours and like Joan’s is this idea that “hey look, the patriarchy molded me and forced me to be a sub, and I hate it, but there it is.” And I see, along with that, what I at least understand to be a concern that if we don’t worry about such things as kinky porn and the mainstreaming of BDSM, it’ll happen more. And the thing is… most of us don’t think it often does that.
January 18, 2010 at 12:37 AM
Faith – I also liked that one.
January 18, 2010 at 12:41 AM
” But what I do see in comments like yours and like Joan’s is this idea that “hey look, the patriarchy molded me and forced me to be a sub, and I hate it, but there it is.” ”
And that’s such a problem for you because?
January 18, 2010 at 12:52 AM
It’s not (though I’ll admit not liking a basic part of yourself sounds pretty damn awful.) The problem is the weird “this stuff should exist less because otherwise people will end up like me” without proof.
January 18, 2010 at 12:53 AM
“And the thing is… most of us don’t think it often does that.”
Who is most of us, exactly? People who practice BDSM? “sex-positive” feminists? Society in general?
January 18, 2010 at 1:11 AM
Thanks for your comments, Joan. Appreciated!
As for ‘insecure’, I don’t think it is a great slur. I am insecure about many things, in fundamental ways.
“It’s cool that you don’t feel a need to defend your sexuality (which I have no idea what it is) from criticism. But it also sounds a wee bit privileged, no?”
1) no, it’s not privileged. My sexual history speaks of the opposite of privilege. No woman in patriarchy is privileged vis-a-vis sexuality.
2) What my sexuality *is* intrigues me. My first response to that bizarre query was ‘What it *is*, is none of your business’. My second was one of curiousity: Is my sexuality meant to be *something*? Should I have a label for it, some neat category? I have no idea. I can’t define it.
The possessive pronoun *my* also puzzles me. For most of my life, it has not felt like *mine* at all. I’m sure *my* sexuality (whatever it is) is the same as a lot of women’s, as hundrum and bog-standard as anyone else’s. I really don’t know.
It’s at times like this when I feel we are speaking two different languages, and each of us misses the nuances of both. But I can’t explain what I mean, even in my language. The terms just don’t exist. Words won’t speak.
January 18, 2010 at 1:17 AM
I also feel that if *my* sexuality was truly *mine* then I wouldn’t feel aroused at things which make me uncomfortable or that I find misogynist.
But perhaps here I am showing my Obsessive Compulsive control-freak side, wanting to police all physical actions, reactions and thoughts? Or maybe I’m foolishly seeking after some kind of peace of mind and consistency that no human being can have?
Whatever the case, Sheila Jeffreys was spot-on when she pointed out that we don’t have words in this language to describe sexual feelings that are unpleasant or unwelcome. Our orgasm = always good! bullshit does women no favours.
January 18, 2010 at 1:40 AM
that should read “police all *my* physical reactions…” etc. I’m only a control freak as regards myself, luckily.
January 18, 2010 at 3:46 AM
“It’s not (though I’ll admit not liking a basic part of yourself sounds pretty damn awful.) The problem is the weird “this stuff should exist less because otherwise people will end up like me” without proof.”
I really don’t consider my arousal to SM to be a “basic part” of myself. I consider it to be an
-abnormal- part of myself, as I’ve already stated.
“The problem is the weird “this stuff should exist less because otherwise people will end up like me” without proof.”
You also have no proof that I’m wrong either. You only have your own personal, quite defensive belief that I’m wrong. There is quite a large amount of evidence to support my stance that I am the way that I am because of my exposure to patriarchal society. That you refuse to believe that isn’t something I can do anything about. Nor is it really anything that I really care to do anything about. All I want is for you and all the others who disagree to stop mocking, attacking, and ridiculing those of us who do feel that we have been damaged and who are uncomfortable with being aroused by and finding enjoyment in activities that we believe are in fact manifestations of our own oppression.
January 18, 2010 at 4:03 AM
“we see vaguely annoying sexist stuff”
Women being tied up, cut, pissed on, shit on, burned, strangled, and verbally abused – often by multiple men – is “vaguely annoying sexist stuff”?
January 18, 2010 at 4:23 AM
Faith –
I have to admit I haven’t seen too much from Kink.com, and most of what I have seen was from their F/m themed site, but… I have never seen cutting or scat. Or burning, unless you interpret wax play to be “burning.”
And yeah, that’s actually how I feel about it, or I wouldn’t have said it. I think a lot of media is intentionally exaggerated. Just look at your average not-porn movie.
January 18, 2010 at 4:26 AM
Also, Faith, I never said you aren’t damaged. What I did say is that I don’t think the majority of people who are into BDSM — much less all of us — are into it because there is some pure other-us, some Platonic form, that got dragged into the cesspit of the Patriarchy. Whether you as an individual can be sure that you’ve been soiled is nothing that remotely interests me.
January 18, 2010 at 2:15 PM
“Whether you as an individual can be sure that you’ve been soiled is nothing that remotely interests me.”
For someone who claims to not give a fuck about people who disagree with you, you sure spend a lot of time lurking around their blogs and arguing with them.
If you really don’t give a damn, and you aren’t interested in hearing our side of the story, here’s a idea…just leave us all the hell alone, Trinity.
In short: Take your condescension and fuck off.
January 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Faith –
One comment, and then I’m leaving, because yes, I was mean to you and should stop and also because even if I weren’t being mean to you this would be hopeless:
I understand that you think BDSM desires are an abnormal, externally-imposed part of yourself. I get that. I think you’re far more likely than I am to know if there’s some other-you that got trampled, since, hey, I’m not you.
What I mean by “a basic part of yourself” is not an assertion that you were just born kinky. What I mean is that sexuality is a big part of individuals’ lives (or, at least, of individuals who aren’t asexual). I think that rejecting so basic a drive because it takes the “wrong” form (even if you are correct that under ideal circumstances it would take a “better” one) is exhausting, draining, and ultimately unproductive. I cannot imagine that rejecting a part of yourself as strongly as you do here is healthy for most people, though again, what is healthy for you may be wildly outside my understanding.
I don’t say this to try to patch everything up with you; I consider that impossible. I say it only to clear up what I meant by “basic” here.
And with that, I will follow your advice, and fuck off for now.
January 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM
ND-
“I’m responding to Orlando’s comment about asking radical feminists to justify their views.”
I have no idea what you’re referring to. Sorry.
Also, no, I have no idea who Joan Kelly is. I’m not in the habit of looking up the credentials of people I’m talking to before I decide if what they’re saying makes any sense. JK says she’s very familiar with kink media and that “every single” piece of it she’s seen supports female subjugation. I don’t find that believable; even if she were the pope of kink studies.
Unless, of course, we go in for a Jeffries-style tautology that all kink is inherently misogynistic, no matter who it depicts or what it depicts them doing.
January 18, 2010 at 9:02 PM
I haven’t had a chance to come back here since whenever I was last on.
Sometimes when I’m riled up I either say things that aren’t accurate or I don’t say them clearly. Sorry for any confusion.
First of all, that made me laugh when you wrote that, Faith. It seems like there are some people who think I am more well-known, particularly among perverts, than I actually am. What I think she was referring to, Orlando, is the book I wrote that got published, about when I used to work full time as a professional submissive and masochist. Now you’re all caught up on stuff you never cared about in the first place.
It sounded like I did mean every single piece of every kind of media is female submissive oriented when it comes to kink. I wrote:
Every single BDSM related media that I’ve ever seen
when what I meant was every BDSM-related type of media – websites as a type of media, BDSM porn on the whole, magazines, personal ad websites, etc. is more skewed than not towards male top/female bottom. There are obviously websites and movies and magazines etc. – and portions of one website/movie/etc that is otherwise male dom/female sub – that are female dominant/male submissive, female/female, male/male/, etc. I do, though, think it’s accurate to say that similar to the way white/blond/skinny/large breasts/tan is the predominant type of appearance for women in mainstream porn – though again not the only type to show up and even have strong fan bases – female submissive/masochist and male dominant/sadist is the predominant type of configuration over the landscape of kink’s presentation in all forms of media. I don’t think that’s an accident. Nor is it a mystery to me why non-kinksters of an anti-misogyny bent would be bummed out about it.
Faith and Laurelin, I’m sorry if what else I have to say makes you wish you hadn’t responded positively to my other comments.
I’m actually not conflicted or bummed out anymore about my sexual preferences and actions. I do relate to feeling the way Faith describes, and I have to say, given my experience with my own self, I wish for you that you get to be okay with it at some point rather than tormented by it. My original choice for me and possibility that I would wish for you if I thought it existed would be to not have that sexual orientation anymore. It’s not my experience that that is possible, so instead I do wish for peace. And excitement. For everybody. I can’t help it.
And I think for fairness’ sake I should also say this:
The reason I don’t feel defensive when anyone critiques or even flatly condemns kink from a supposed radical feminist perspective is that to me it seems like anti-kink radfems = just about zero sociopolitical clout and pro-kink kinksters = carrying the day. That is not the same, I should say, as other people who are anti-kink having no power. The weird thing about conservatives is that more than a few are into BDSM, *and* religious or other right wing views on sexuality conform to a male dominant/female submissive script ANY fucking way. But anything other than sex within marriage of a man and woman will be pathologized and punished, where punishment is an option for those who are against it.
That is not the same animal at all as radfems talking shit about BDSM.
But if you are a person who does not see it that way, intellectually of course I can understand feeling like “hey wait a minute” when it comes to non-kinky people talking about BDSM.
I do see stuff that doesn’t match my reality, among some radical feminists’ responses to kink, including in this very thread. I don’t know why I feel more activated around anti-radical-feminist responses than I do around radfems saying stuff I don’t agree with, versus someone else being the opposite. I suppose my single-minded pursuit of whatever-I-feel-like plays into my not viewing radfems as having any power on this front, so not feeling a need to say “I don’t agree with x” when it comes to it.
And I don’t actually mean that in a “well I’m so secure I don’t know what your problem is!” I mean that it’s merely my experience of myself that whatever conflict I ever felt and whatever negative beliefs anyone else has about my perversion, there is way more steam, in an already male dominant/female submissive society anyway, behind my having a clear path to do the stuff I feel like doing. Which I have done and continue to do.
So the in-fairness part is – that’s not true for every manifestation of consensual kink. No surprise it could lead to us feeling differently.
January 18, 2010 at 9:58 PM
“I have to say that the seemingly obsessive need to be validated in one’s sexual behaviour is bizarre to me. If someone were to criticise what I do in bed*, I would not feel compelled to tell them why what I do is just fine and lovely and I like it and stop judging me, etc. It wouldn’t phase me.”
This strikes me as saying that positive portrayals of women/queers/people of color/etc. are unnecessary because self-esteem should come from within, not from others.
I know the analogy rubs people the wrong way, but in this case I think wherever you fall down on the kinky-as-oppressed argument, this one makes sense: you could claim that homosexuals ought not be concerned with what other people think of their sexuality or how they are portrayed in the media, but should instead seek to accept themselves.
While the goal of self-esteem as self-directed is laudable, it sure makes it a lot easier to construct a satisfying identity when the ambient culture isn’t telling you you’re irredeemably perverted.
Thumper expresses it better than I can:
“I have, in the back of my mind, always clung to this idea that I might be a switch. Not that it mattered much since Belle’s unlikely to ever let me top her and she’ll never let me top anyone else, but I clung to it. Like a blanket. Like a thing that made me feel better but was actually totally worthless. Now I know, thanks to Rika and what she wrote and how it finally knocked the final pieces into place, that I’m not ever going to be a switch. I am, in fact, always going to be on the bottom. And that freaks me the fuck out.
First of all, I admit to carrying around a prejudice against submissive males. Submissives in general kinda creep me out. It makes no sense, I know, but that’s what it is. It’s like I’m the white supremacist who just discovered the black grandmother he never knew about or the uber-masculine father of 12 who suddenly figured out he was gay. This is all horrible and all nasty and sad and not anything I’m happy about, but I see now that I’ve never fully embraced my submissive nature because I don’t especially like the archetype as it exists in our culture. In fact, there is no archetype. No role model. Nothing positive to look towards. Just layer after layer of stereotype and ridicule and cultural indifference. And now I know I’m one of them.”
http://denyingthumper.com/2010/01/04/the-nose-on-my-face/
“Maybe if my fellow perverts (and well-meaning self-appointed allies) stopped acting like there was such a thing as “non kink sexuality privilege””
If there were no such thing as a non-kink sexuality privilege, BDSM bloggers like Maymay who are out of the closet about their real identity wouldn’t be so rare.
The bottom line is, I can’t cross-post non-sexual stuff from my blog to my facebook account for fear that someone will link up the two and realize that I’m kinky. I can’t get out there like Maymay is and start organizing within the physical community, working on projects like KinkForAll, without taking a very serious risk that my career will be negatively impacted. If I did it, I probably would not be able to follow my plan of teaching high school immediately after I graduate. There’s a very high risk that I will violate some morality clause of the bar association’s contract, and be denied the ability to practice law. Nearly every job I could apply for will be impacted in some way or another.
This isn’t merely anecdotal. 24% of kinky people have reported losing a job over their sexuality, 3% report losing a child. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=162102. These are almost certainly people who, by and large, attempted to conceal their sexuality, but found their attempts to maintain the closet fell short at one point or another.
I can’t think of any way to describe the fact that I have to deal with that and you don’t as privilege.
“Someone living in a small midwest town where they can’t go out in full leathers to their heart’s content, leading their “slave” around on a leash, is no more oppressed than someone whose desire to suck cock in the middle of a restaurant is also unwelcome”
Way to trot out a strawman straight out of the oppressor’s playbook. “If we start treating homosexuals like people, there will be sodomy in the streets!” Master’s tools, and all that.
Look, I don’t want the ability to be lead around on a leash in public. I just want to be able to keep a job if I fail to maintain the closet the sufficient degree. Is that so much to ask?
“Feminist bloggers do not have social or political power over grating internet perverts. Males always already have power in relation to female people, socially and politically.”
Inasmuch as they belong to the privileged class of vanilla sexuality, yeah, they do. In the same way that a white woman does have power in relation to a black man. Being part of one marginalized class does not prevent you from also simultaneously being part of other privileged classes.
“I don’t think it would be fair or reasonable for someone to fire or deny parental rights to someone solely based on the consensual sex they’re having with others. I don’t like that that happens. I don’t believe at all that it is as black and white as you imply in your assertions.”
Then stop supporting their unjust behavior.
January 18, 2010 at 10:26 PM
Joan – we may disagree on some fundamental issues (and agree on some others), but I still appreciate you hitting Orlando C with a bit of common sense.
Best wishes to you.
January 19, 2010 at 12:29 AM
“do relate to feeling the way Faith describes, and I have to say, given my experience with my own self, I wish for you that you get to be okay with it at some point rather than tormented by it.”
My submissive tendencies have actually largely gone away since I realized -why- I felt the way that I do..and since I stopped allowing men to dominate me, and stopped watching porn. There is still conflict (obviously), but mostly it comes from others trying to convince me that my feelings are perfectly normal and that I should just embrace them and be done with it…regardless of whether or not they might in fact be contributing to my and other women’s subjugation.
I can certainly appreciate why many women cease to try to fight it. I also have no problems with that, really. Trying to fight something that has already been so deeply engrained in one’s being is likely to be impossible for many people.
But for me, that’s really not much of an option. I have found that I can re-orient myself at least to some extent. It’s been slow going and has involved multiple processes, including removing triggers from my life (like porn, overtly dominating men, and my stash of toys, for instance). But I am making progress towards developing a sexuality that is more in line with my overall well-being, spirituality, and beliefs.
So, no, I do not regret responding positively to your comments. I understand where you are coming from and I can appreciate it.
January 19, 2010 at 12:35 AM
“I don’t say this to try to patch everything up with you; I consider that impossible.”
It could be possible if you’d stop intentionally behaving like such an asshole. Which is pretty much the only way you have ever treated me.
January 19, 2010 at 4:08 AM
It sounds nice and fair to lay down as a flat rule that people should not lose their job as a result of the “consensual sex” (and presumably any “kink” involved therein) they are having with other people. This isn’t as easy at it sounds in practice, however. I can imagine many people on this board who, if they were my employers, would want me gone upon finding out I engaged in rape fantasies, used women in my relationships, or had a membership to websites like Kink.com.
What if the employee is involved in something like NAMBLA, or has demonstrated some sort of affinity with incest or bestiality? (Presumably where they are legal, and thus, not a fireable offense just for having broken the law.)
The problem is that if one employer gets to be the arbiter of what is and isn’t acceptable levels of kink to have disclosed about one’s self in a work environment, then everyone’s employer gets to be.
This seems to be the way things work now, and it isn’t great, but if the alternative is having to put up (and force other employees to put up) with co-workers who find themselves in the above categories… I’d much rather work under the system now in place than see a work environment forced to cater to it’s most absurd fetishist.
January 19, 2010 at 4:15 AM
Ugh, Faith, I’m sorry – I thought when I read the other stuff you’d written in this thread, that it meant you were like “well I can’t stop but I’m fucking miserable about it.” Considering what it’s actually like for you, I feel like what I wrote sounds patronizing and obnoxious. Sorry about that.
I do relate to experiencing shifts and changes in my sexual response and interests, though. I think where I ended up – or where I may yet go for all I know – may look different than someone else who was not happy with their experiences in BDSM and ends up fucking it off entirely and being glad about that. (Versus me not being happy with some experiences – kink and otherwise – and fucking a lot of dynamics and individuals off entirely). But I don’t know why changing one’s sexual choices and trying to re-route one’s reactions is necessarily a sad-sack-y thing anyway.
I meant before that if something can’t be changed, I don’t want someone to suffer misery for their whole lives about it. But people grow and change and seek what works and feels best for them on all kinds of fronts, I don’t know why sex would be any different.
It does, however, make sense to me that many women’s experiences with sexually dominant and sadistic men would make them want to re-wire themselves so as to not-want a lot of those dudes or those experiences anymore.
Also, Laurelin, thanks for your comment.
January 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM
“Ugh, Faith, I’m sorry – I thought when I read the other stuff you’d written in this thread, that it meant you were like “well I can’t stop but I’m fucking miserable about it.” Considering what it’s actually like for you, I feel like what I wrote sounds patronizing and obnoxious. Sorry about that.”
No problem. I was miserable for awhile. But most of that misery was from trying to decide if I
-should- stop or not. I actually gave myself a nervous breakdown over trying to make the decision over whether to give it up or not. But since I have made that decision, it’s been much easier. I can’t stop being aroused by SM, but I can stop engaging in SM. I can also make the choice to avoid SM media.
I also don’t beat myself up about what I’m aroused by. I recognize that’s it’s not anything for me to be ashamed of, nor is it anything that I seem to be able to control. I certainly wouldn’t choose to get aroused by images of rape, for instance, if I could figure out how to make that stop.
The biggest problems arise when men who are aware of my tendencies towards submission try to convince me to give in to them for their own purposes. They also arise when people like Trinity get so damn pissed off and generally shitty when I try to explain my feelings about my experiences with SM.
January 19, 2010 at 6:43 PM
It is necessary for us to differentiate between:
1) being aroused by something but chosing not to engage in it as it is contrary to one’s moral outlook, and
2) beating oneself up for being aroused by disturbing things.
It seems to be helpful to the cause of pushy and loud BDSM advocates to confuse 1) and 2), so that advocating 1) for oneself is then condemned as being 2). If you’re not engaging in something that turns you on, we are led to believe, you are falling prey to conservative guilt/ restrictive outdated morals/ blah blah blah ad nauseum.
For something that’s supposed to be all about tolerance, BDSM begins to sound a lot like religion in the words of some of its more vociferous participants- it cannot be questioned, you must accept that ‘part of you’, it cannot be denied. It is made to sound like some kind of bizarre spiritual enlightment that we all desire, truly. You know you want it really.
It is perfectly possible and acceptable to be aroused by something and choose not to pursue that thing *because* it conflicts with one’s ethics. No-one should be guilted for that, or pitied, or condescended to. Arousal is (to a great extent) uncontrollable; one’s conscious actions are not.
January 19, 2010 at 8:08 PM
“It seems to be helpful to the cause of pushy and loud BDSM advocates to confuse 1) and 2), so that advocating 1) for oneself is then condemned as being 2). If you’re not engaging in something that turns you on, we are led to believe, you are falling prey to conservative guilt/ restrictive outdated morals/ blah blah blah ad nauseum.”
Can you point to anywhere in this thread where any of us on the pro-BDSM side have condemned Faith for her choice?
To the extent that she does not experience it as orientational but rather as something she can leave behind and be perfectly happy, I question whether it is even defensible to claim that her sexuality and mine reside in the same genus. In any case, each of us need to find our own path, and since Faith and I are different people, what works for me isn’t going to work for her.
Now compare that to 9-2 telling male dominants to off themselves. There’s one side that’s advocating for the ability for people to define themselves and that allows for a diversity of experience in approaching these matters, and it ain’t yours.
January 19, 2010 at 9:20 PM
I did not accuse anyone of explicitly condemning Faith or anyone else. It doesn’t have to explicit.
Re-read the exchange between Faith and Trinity. Whatever Trinity intended to say, her tone was remarkably condescending and rude towards Faith.
“There’s one side that’s advocating for the ability for people to define themselves and that allows for a diversity of experience in approaching these matters, and it ain’t yours.”
Do not insult my intelligence. That’s utter bullshit and you know it.
January 19, 2010 at 9:21 PM
‘My side’ fully available on my blog, folks.
Judge for yourself.
January 19, 2010 at 10:09 PM
“Can you point to anywhere in this thread where any of us on the pro-BDSM side have condemned Faith for her choice?”
Did Trinity outright condemn me? No. Did she behave as if she found my feelings about my sexuality repulsive and offensive? Yes. Trinity and other Pro-Sm folks have repeatedly treated me with utter disdain or outright attacked me when I have expressed my feelings about my SM inclinations, or about SM in general.
“I question whether it is even defensible to claim that her sexuality and mine reside in the same genus. ”
I can not just “leave my sexuality behind”. I can make the active choice to not engage it. There is a difference. If you go back and reread my comments, you’ll see that I have already essentially stated such.
January 20, 2010 at 8:04 AM
Faith:
I can’t speak for Trinity, but if I’ve ever made you feel like that I appoligize. I hope where you are at and where you are heading is better for you.
January 20, 2010 at 5:26 PM
“I can’t speak for Trinity, but if I’ve ever made you feel like that I appoligize. I hope where you are at and where you are heading is better for you.”
Thank you.
January 22, 2010 at 5:14 AM
JK-
Thank you very much for that response. I do think that there is a real distinction between saying “X is more skewed than not towards Y” and “every single piece of X is Y.” I’ll try to find time to read your book; if you’ve stopped by my website you’ll know that I’m kind of an obsessive reader of this genre, although my focus has been on surveys rather than memoirs.
I also think….mhhhmmm….I think that there is a pattern with kink that is true for many deviant subcultures. Kink is stigmatized, and it is also glamourized. Not quite in the same way. The kink that is glamourized in Ikea ads and so forth is a particular set of pornographic tropes that don’t have much of anything to do with my own life experience, or, I believe, the experience of most people who see themselves as kinky.
But nevertheless, it allows us to say–accurately–that BDSM is a popular meme. BDSM tropes appear on television, in the media, etc. The actual people who might identify with some version of BDSM face stigma (however mild), but the concept, dressed up as farce or porn, enjoys a modicum of popularity. I don’t think this is unique to kink or difficult to understand.
January 22, 2010 at 8:25 PM
The reason I don’t feel defensive when anyone critiques or even flatly condemns kink from a supposed radical feminist perspective is that to me it seems like anti-kink radfems = just about zero sociopolitical clout and pro-kink kinksters = carrying the day.
And I live in a country which has a long, long history of censoring queer and kinky literature/media and justifying it with obscenity law based in part on the writings of radical feminists.
Thank you, try again.
January 22, 2010 at 10:00 PM
And *I* live in a country where billboards in high traffic areas (one of the poshest portions of the Sunset Strip in West Hollywood, California) depict male models as being in the act of over-the-knee spanking female models. This ad was for clothing. It is not unusual. It is mainstreamed in all kinds of ways here.
So take your references to Canadian court decisions on PORNOGRAPHY – not the sex people are having – and also take your misplaced condescenion, and go fuck yourself with both. Thank YOU.
January 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM
Orlando, I don’t think we’re likely to ever agree on this, but thank you for responding.
Cartoonish depictions of bdsm in mainstream media, the kind of depictions that are meant to generate mocking laughter (which is what it sounds like you’re referring to as “mild stigma”), by definition often have little to do with how individuals do bdsm in their real lives.
And my point about the encouragement and acceptance of female subs and male doms still very much stands when it comes to these cartoonish depictions – I won’t say that ALL the cartoonish stuff is with female doms and male subs only, because I doubt I have seen every single thing out there, but all of the mockery that I’ve ever seen myself has been with female doms and male subs. Female submission to males is not what gets made into a joke.
Instead, female submission gets made into “fashion,” and “sexy tips” in non-kinky magazines, and storylines in crime shows, the list goes on.
Female submission – in and outside bdsm – enjoys more than a modicum of popularity. It is the major template of non-kinky hetero relations and kinky as well.
January 22, 2010 at 11:28 PM
also, I misspelled condescension.
January 23, 2010 at 3:35 AM
Joan:
You either didn’t play close attention to what I wrote, or you misunderstood me.
I said that what’s been censored is queer and kinky literature/media. That wasn’t a euphemism for “pornography.” I quite literally meant LITERATURE. Books of various genres. Non-pornographic films.
Other stuff that’s been censored? Feminist literature. Academic literature on alternative sexualities. Books that revolve around any sort of non-procreative sex…even between heterosexual people.
Stuff like: How-to sex guides of ALL kinds. A man’s memoirs about losing friends to AIDS. Kinky fiction (yes, including erotica). Hothead Paisan: Homicidal Lesbian Terrorist comics. Susie Bright’s Egg Sex.
And on. And on.
Mainstream pornographic films? To the best of my knowledge, have never once been stopped at the border. This isn’t about porn as we commonly think of it.
You said kinky people have more sociopolitical clout. If that were true, then surely books and films which represent alternative sexualities positively wouldn’t be so difficult for us to get into each other’s hands.
If you don’t have freedom of even information, what sort of clout can you possibly have?
So while I don’t approve whatsoever of the billboard you mention (I don’t think that’s appropriate to put where children can see it, if nothing else), I can’t say I find that anywhere near as disturbing as this facile “protection of women’s rights.”
Which is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
January 23, 2010 at 6:40 AM
Bean,
I did read your comment, and insomuch as I could make sense of it, the wikipedia entry you linked to. Both of which you made a point of posting as if they had anything to do with what I said. They don’t. So on top of your response being, in fact, non-responsive, you also mixed in some snottiness with the “thank you try again” business.
I don’t know understand which thing you’re referring to as “this facile “protection of women’s rights.”” Is the wacky obscenity law in Canada supposed to be some protection of women’s rights? Or are you saying that an argument against the wholesale promotion of female submission and masochism is a facile protection of women’s rights?
Whatever the case, my position is that arbitrarily applied obscenity laws – which, according to you, censor things like “feminist literature” but let actual pornography fly freely about the atmosphere? – are not in fact evidence of male dominance and female submission being unacceptable sexual/romantic frameworks.
Again, I live in the US. There is, to my ongoing horror, a fairly strong conservative Christian contingent in this country. The word “sex” is bleeped out of pop songs; I can’t think of another example that I just noticed earlier today because I’m fuzzy-headed on cold medicine, but there are even more benign words that get absurdly censored in pop culture media.
None of that puts any power whatsoever into the hands of kink-critical radical feminists. Especially not as regards other people’s sex lives. I don’t know what the hell Canada’s up to, but I do have a general enough sense of it to know that it, too, is not a radfem utopia, obscenity laws or not.
Lastly, it is not the fact that that billboard was in full view of children that is so disturbing to me (though I don’t fucking like that part, either); the propaganda towards legitimizing female submission and masochism permeates everything all the time – it is not being hidden from children in the first place. It may not always show up in overt BDSM-themed references (though it does so more and more, as I’ve noted), but it is the ever-present blueprint for heterosexuality.
That billboard is basically just a fucked up sign post on a destructive road. The road itself is the problem. And, I believe, it is a road that runs parallel to obscenity laws, not counter to them. Conservative culture, such as it is, in this country, proves that point over and over: the requirement of female submission/masochism and overall higher levels of social control go hand in hand, if males in power have anything to say about it. And they do. Hence my objections to all of it.
January 23, 2010 at 8:02 PM
Joan:
I wasn’t trying to be “snotty” – a word which implies nothing more than childish impertinence – I was furious. Are you the only one allowed to be angry?
But you’re right – Canada is no radical feminist utopia. On the contrary, I think it would be perfectly in keeping with a radical feminist POV to be outraged and sickened by what’s happened in Canada. Strangely, I never get that response.
The Butler decision was theoretically about protecting women, yes. (That’s what I meant.) Canadian feminists – with the aid of Catherine McKinnon – fought for the Butler decision. It was was considered a feminist victory; supposedly, it was about stopping “violent” and “degrading” pornography from coming into the country.
As I said – to the best of my knowledge, it has done no such thing.
Instead, the past few decades have seen seizures at the border of things which I might describe as “that which challenges the status quo social order re: gender and sexuality.” Queer material had been targeted before Butler, of course, but post-Butler, even moreso. Queer material seems to be the most heavily targeted, but kinky material gets targeted, too.
When I first learned of the Customs seizures, in fact, kinky heterosexual erotica was among the examples of things I was told had been stopped at the border.
You make it sound like I’m making that up when you say, “which, according to you, censor things like “feminist literature” but let actual pornography fly freely about the atmosphere.”
Do you not see how this is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to have happen when the power to seize ambiguously-defined “obscene” material is put in the hands of those who have nothing to gain from holding onto mainstream porn, but everything to gain from holding onto more radical material?
You know what? Let’s leave the Butler decision out of this entirely for a moment. Let’s ignore any radical feminist influence in this (since I doubt what’s happened with Butler is what any radfem would have wanted to have happened).
Just look at the fact that kinky people in Canada don’t even have the power to ensure our fiction gets over the damn border.
That’s not power.
If M/f images are saturating popular culture, it’s sure as hell not because kinky people themselves have the power to put them there. Rather, it’s because a few select tropes are being exploited for profit.
If you believe otherwise, you’re playing the shell game. And getting taken.
January 25, 2010 at 8:06 PM
PHB races: dragonborn
Underdark
“None of that puts any power whatsoever into the hands of kink-critical radical feminists. Especially not as regards other people’s sex lives. I don’t know what the hell Canada’s up to, but I do have a general enough sense of it to know that it, too, is not a radfem utopia, obscenity laws or not.”
Power doesn’t have to be wielded in a bloc. Conservative Christian condemnations of homosexuality were largely orthagonal to psychiatric condemnations of it (and thankfully the latter has almost entirely vanished), but they both wielded power. Likewise, the fact that radical faminists find themselves on the side of those who they usually oppose, and usually have power, does not mean that they are not engaged in perpetuating the persecution of kinky people. Though it should make you pause if you’re on the same side as Falwell.
“That billboard is basically just a fucked up sign post on a destructive road. The road itself is the problem. And, I believe, it is a road that runs parallel to obscenity laws, not counter to them. Conservative culture, such as it is, in this country, proves that point over and over: the requirement of female submission/masochism and overall higher levels of social control go hand in hand, if males in power have anything to say about it. And they do. Hence my objections to all of it.”
I highly doubt that the conservative Christians would be a-ok with whips, fisting, and restraints.
There is no similarity between an ethos that emphasizes informed consent, safety, and autonomy and one that advocates the oppression of women. To the extent that you view them as similar, you are revealing your own ideological blinders.
January 25, 2010 at 8:14 PM
Further, has it occurred to you that such representations might, in fact, be evidence of kink’s marginalization rather than its acceptance? That using such tropes to seem edgy or to paint someone as “other” or deviant doesn’t indicate that the mainstream thinks that it is okay, but rather, that it reinforces the distinction between privileged sexualities and marginalized ones?
January 25, 2010 at 8:43 PM
“Though it should make you pause if you’re on the same side as Falwell.”
Radical feminists are *not* on the same side as Falwell.
How appalling of you to suggest such a thing.
January 25, 2010 at 8:47 PM
“I listen to feminists and all these radical gals – most of them are failures. They’ve blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men – that’s their problem.” ~Jerry Falwell
—–nope. not on the same side!
“I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this [9/11] happen.”
—- huh. still no. who’d have thought?
January 25, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Laurelin’s shameless, obnoxious self-promotion hour begins:
http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2006/04/25/feminists-v-fundies/
Thankyou and goodnight! ;)
January 25, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Bean – your original comment directed at me consisted of you quoting a part of an earlier comment of mine as if what you wrote afterwards refuted it. It didn’t and still doesn’t. And you did it in an overtly condescending way. You don’t like someone noticing that and remarking on it, feel free to not do it. And why the fuck you’re trying to argue with me about Canadian obscenity laws and censorship is incomprehensible – it has zero to do with anything I’ve said or believe, and in fact contradicts things I have said here and elsewhere about my opposition to such practices.
Gorgias -
Conservative Christianity (along with most other religions, political bents, ideologies) promotes male domination and female submission, including in sexual relations. And I know, and know of, plenty of conservative Christians who are are, actually, “a-ok” with whips, fisting, and restraints.” So long as it’s the female who is submitting to such things, and the male who is administering them.
The majority of representations of kinky sex depicts female people in the submissive and masochistic role, in relation to dominant/sadistic males. These representations also, OVERWHELMINGLY, depict these exchanges as NONCONSENSUAL, because *that* is part of the turn on. The fact that the people who appear in these depictions do so consensually, even ecstatically, does not magically make the sexy non-consent depicted therein into something that people thus take in as consensual instead. It is dishonest to pretend otherwise.
If a majority of people who engage in kinky sex are doing so with 100% autonomy and informed consent, that STILL has fuck all to do with the way kink is promoted and depicted.
There are countless similarities between the so-called “ethos” of kink and every other “ethos” that’s out there – one main one being an under and/or over-current of white male supremacy.
You believe otherwise. Goody for you. Kindly take your paternalistic diagnoses about me and go consensually fist yourself with them.
January 25, 2010 at 10:18 PM
“We must not abandon any group of women, as the moment we do, feminism means nothing.”
Mind explaining to me why you’ve abandoned women who don’t conform to how you feel sex should be done?
“nope. not on the same side!”
On the issue of shaming sluts and perverts, you are.
“These representations also, OVERWHELMINGLY, depict these exchanges as NONCONSENSUAL, because *that* is part of the turn on.”
I find that the majority of kinky pornography does not imply nonconsensuality. For someone of the dominant and normative sexual ethic, such as yourself, most BDSM porn might appear so because, hey, who would do that unless they were being coerced into it!? But in the context it is presented for the audience it is presented to, using a gag or restraints does not imply nonconsent.
January 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM
I think people who are defending BDSM Porn from the stand-point that it is consensual do not want to face the fact that their sexual appetite revolves around subjugation and power play.
Its hard to argue in ways that promote equity, justice, and general good will towards traditionally oppressed groups when throwing in the caveat: “But when I am jacking off I still expect you play the submissive role for me and let me mistreat you…since it really gets me off and I know you like it too”.
The whole point of being “a good person” is doing away with those urges to begin with, NOT hiding behind the fact that you found someone just as depraved as you to share and legitimize your “kinkiness”.
Sexual fantasies have repercussions that define how people will be treated, even in the non-sexual sphere. Its really that simple.
January 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM
“Mind explaining to me why you’ve abandoned women who don’t conform to how you feel sex should be done?”
How do I believe sex should be ‘done’, and how exactly have I ‘abandoned’ women who do not ‘conform’? You’re going to need to tell me, because you’ve obviously seen a part of my site that I have no access to.
“On the issue of shaming sluts and perverts, you are.”
Firstly: who have I ‘slut-shamed’? Who have I called a ‘pervert’? Again, another part of my blog of which I am unaware!
Secondly: the term ‘slut-shaming’ is itself bullshit for these reasons: http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/the-power-of-words-iv/
January 25, 2010 at 11:05 PM
“nope. not on the same side!”
On the issue of shaming sluts and perverts, you are.
—if this is your conclusion, then you evidently did not read the post I posted properly. Try again.
January 25, 2010 at 11:11 PM
@Andrew, as a feminist kinkster I have spent a lot of time thinking about how my sexuality works with my feminist thought.
Do you have any evidence based studies which suggest how I could, successfully remove my desires? Given the failure of similar anti-queer programs.
January 25, 2010 at 11:16 PM
Gorgias,
You are either being willfully dishonest or you are unfortunately dense.
I’ve been IN bdsm porn. I have seen loads of it. I have consensually experienced some of the things that would most disturb some of the people on this thread who find bdsm sex and/or porn disturbing.
You want to pretend that most bdsm porn does not depict the fantasy (and I use “fantasy” because much of it is, prove-ably, consensually and happily made by people who enjoy doing it) of non-consent on the part of the submissive/masochist, you go right the fuck on with that. I’m done arguing with people about plainly observable reality.
January 25, 2010 at 11:17 PM
Joan: to save you pain. People talk about Canadian obscenity laws because it is a standard internetz answer to anything vaguely connected with ‘censorship’ they’ve read somewhere else. It’s for people who can’t formulate their own arguments in other words.
Also in this category, “stop oppressing me”,”that’s gender essentialist” and, oh I can’t really be arsed to type the last one, fill it in yourself.
My I’m in a foul mood. Wonder why.
January 25, 2010 at 11:29 PM
Thanks, Polly.
Andrew, for christ’s sake already. The only part of your comment that’s NOT bullshit in multiple ways is the quotation marks around the words “a good person.”
January 25, 2010 at 11:46 PM
“Conservative Christianity (along with most other religions, political bents, ideologies) promotes male domination and female submission, including in sexual relations. And I know, and know of, plenty of conservative Christians who are are, actually, “a-ok” with whips, fisting, and restraints.” So long as it’s the female who is submitting to such things, and the male who is administering them.”
Well, I was going to respond to Gorgias, but you took the words right out of my mouth. There are even websites devoted to Christian SM if memory serves me correctly. I want to say that awful “Under his Hand” website is a Christian SM site, but I don’t think that’s right. Anyone have any idea what I’m thinking about because I’m really loath to go searching for it myself. I don’t need to get filled with that much rage tonight. I’d rather enjoy my steamed veggies that I’m currently eating for dinner in peace without getting triggered.
January 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM
@ Cheshire
Is it your contention that since you can not successfully divorce your sexual persona from the rest of your psyche, it must be a positive form of sexual expression? I can think of many deviant groups who would embrace exactly that type of logic…
If your argument is that your behavior is legitimate because it is consensual, your exception will eventually swallow the rule. I have seen women do some pretty humiliating things, consensually, most of which reinforcing patriarchal attitudes that women “just love to get fucked” and “will totally do anything if you know how to ask for it”. If consensual is the mark for what is and isn’t feminist, the porn industry is hardly the problem it’s made out to be. This is unlikely.
I think feminism entails a bit of respect for general humanity, as well as your partner. I don’t think one can really “respect” their partner if getting off with them requires a substantial amount of abuse.
In short, your sexual desires can be harmful to others, even if just marginally. Consensual expression of these desires does not render them less harmful. If you want a list regarding the social harms of pornography and abusive sexual behavior, I am sure all you have to do is google it.
January 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM
I just wrote you a comment recommending Chris Hedges’ “The Empire of Illusion.” In chapter 2 of the book, he interviews women in the porn industry. The book’s narrative reveals firsthand that women who participate in those types of torture-porn suffer terrible, long-lasting consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder. They also experience tearing of the anus and vagina and have many medical problems, including infections.
As I wrote a little while ago, I just came across your website. I think you are a graduate student, as am I. I experienced some traumatizing good old boys’ politics when I was in residence at my university. My experiences there reminded me just how deeply misogynistic this society still is and how far women still have to go to get respect in this country and in the academy.
January 26, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Joan – Okay then! I’m afraid you lost you me completely with, “in fact contradicts things I have said here and elsewhere about my opposition to such practices,” since I was hardly accusing you of anything other than being wrong. I definitely don’t recall accusing you of being pro-censorship. Assuming that’s what you’re talking about. I’m not sure.
I don’t have that image of the bunny with a pancake on hand, so you’ll just have to imagine it.
Polly – Yeah, it’s my go-to argument for internet wars. It’s totally not because I’m Canadian, and it actually matters to me. It’s certainly not because I think it’s outrageous that someone is claiming that kinky people have more sociopolitical power than those who are actually influencing legislation.
No, it’s all just abstract fodder for arguing on the intarwebz.
Andrew – I’m so glad you’re here. Where would we be without your brilliant insights?
I noticed that you didn’t actually answer Cheshire’s question, though. Do you have any evidence that suggests kinky people can become non-kinky?
Failing that, do you have any ideas yourself how we could achieve that?
January 26, 2010 at 6:33 PM
@ Bean
The question is not whether or not kinky people should un-kink themselves. The question is whether or not a person’s kink is socially responsible, and if it is not, how they should feel about it. I posit that that whether or not person’s kink is socially responsible is a function of the harm practicing it brings to society. If the kink is harmful, I don’t think the fact that it is similar to “an immutable trait” exculpates the actor.
January 26, 2010 at 7:34 PM
It’s surprising how many other people I’ve heard talking about it then Bean. And some of them weren’t even Canadian.
Bet they’ve all watched that film Better than Chocolate though (don’t bother, it’s shite).
January 26, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Much as it pains me to defend Andrew, even partially, I do have to point out that ‘it’s my sexual orientation and I can’t help it’, is a classic argument that has been used by paedophiles for ages.
And it’s probably true. They do really want to have sex with children. That’s not either a moral or legal argument for them being able to do it though.
They will also point out that different societies have viewed/do view sex with children differently – also true. Legal sex in one country is statutory rape in another.
They will also say that some of the minor children consent, or enthusiastically sought the sexual activity,(recent case in the UK where a 40 odd year old man was not jailed for having sex with a 13 year old because she ‘led him on’) or were experienced sexually (think Polanski). Also true.
You see the problems maybe.
January 26, 2010 at 9:15 PM
And I don’t have a picture of a squirrel cracking a nut over a wildebeast’s head for being a disingenuous jackass, Bean, so I guess we both will have to settle for whatever our imaginations can conjure on the random-animal-allegory fronts.
January 26, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Polly –
I get what you’re saying with the pedophile comparison, but I do think there are substantive differences between what may or may not be the implications of one’s sexual choices with other consenting adults, versus the actual direct consequences of one’s sexual predation on those who do not and/or cannot meaningfully consent, i.e. children and animals.
I would not argue that bdsm-related sex is implication-free. But I would also not argue that *any* sex, including and especially the sex between male and female people, including that which is consensual between an adult female and an adult male and is not kinky at all, is implication-free as far as male supremacy goes. And I just find Andrew’s coming here from on high to call other people depraved…it feels grand-stand-y to me, not actually anti-male-supremacist.
Plus, he wrote “The whole point of being “a good person” is doing away with those urges to begin with,” in his first comment, then when someone was like, “well how does one do away with one’s urges,” he switched to the claim that it was acting on them, not having them, that made for good-person-ness or the lack thereof.
January 26, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Andrew – Look, it was you who said:
The whole point of being “a good person” is doing away with those urges to begin with, NOT hiding behind the fact that you found someone just as depraved as you to share and legitimize your “kinkiness”.
This suggests that you believe it’s possible to “do away” with a desire for kink.
I’m waiting to hear how you think someone should do that.
Whether or not it’s “socially responsible” is not something I’m currently speaking about, so please stop trying to sidestep and just answer the question if you think you can.
January 26, 2010 at 10:30 PM
““But when I am jacking off I still expect you play the submissive role for me and let me mistreat you…since it really gets me off and I know you like it too”.”
When I’m submitting, I really don’t feel like I’m being mistreated. I can’t imagine why anyone would choose to do it if they were feeling mistreated.
“Sexual fantasies have repercussions that define how people will be treated, even in the non-sexual sphere. Its really that simple.”
Indeed they do. Which is why you ought to respect the autonomy, will, and desires of your partner rather than paternalistically claiming that you know what’s best for them. It’s why you ought to respect limits, communicate well, and do everything with a mind to mutual pleasure.
None of which is inconsistent with kink.
“I think feminism entails a bit of respect for general humanity, as well as your partner. I don’t think one can really “respect” their partner if getting off with them requires a substantial amount of abuse.”
And I don’t think one can truly respect one’s partner if one views them as an irredeemably damaged stooge of the patriarchy, driven by something outside their will to seek degradation. I think respecting your partner entails respecting their faculties of will, introspection, and judgment. I think it entails doing your best to help them realize their desires.
My dominants have shown me a hell of a lot more respect than anyone on the other side of this conversation.
January 27, 2010 at 12:50 AM
@Polly –
I’m an unaplogetic kinkster. I don’t need to validate my kink with “I can’t help it; this is how I am” because that implies I should try to change something about myself and cannot.
Heterosexuals could also say, “This is my sexuality, I can’t help it, this is how I am”, just as homosexuals or bisexuals could say the same thing. Having a sexuality of a particular flavor – assuming all parties are consenting adults – and being unable or uninterested in changing it is not de facto proof that that sexuality is in any way a pathology or a social ill.
January 27, 2010 at 1:29 AM
Joan, Laurelin, ND, etc.-
I should probably not post this, but I feel like my frustration needs some kind of voice. I have just spent the last several days watching my lover, my wife, who as it happens is also my domme, have her ovaries burne away by chemotherapy and radiation.
We were in the midst of planning to have children when her cancer was diagnosed. Letting go of that was agony, but life goes on. Now we hope to adopt. If we had come out of the closet, which once seemed like a noble, honest, thing–that is, if we had casually, openly discussed our sex life with friends, the way many straight (and, these days, many queer) non-kinky people do–the possibility of adoption would be almost entirely precluded. As it is, we will need to submit to home visits (because we are no longer fit to have children without someone else’s permission) that will make inquiries–I would think only superficially–about our sex lives. And we will lie, obviously. But the deception will cause a level of anxiety. We strive for sincerity. Lying is not our idea of good health.
On this thread, where I think I’ve been relatively polite, I have tried to suggest that there is a (mild) stigma against BDSM in contemporary US culture. I have provided links to a great deal of information, fully cited, in defense of that position. And I have been told to go fuck myself at least once or twice.
I hope you appreciate that this feels personal. I know I shouldn’t be posting in this moment. I’ve been at her bedside for days, I’ve been holding her as she throws up, consoling her as her body falls apart. It is…tiring…to keep coming back here and find that some contingent of my fellows believe I am secretly oppressing Murre because I like it when she used to beat me, back when she could stand up unassisted.
I know that you have compelling reasons to believe what you believe, and I know very well the feeling that some particular moral crusade is larger than anyone’s individual experience. But I hope you can still hear the voices of the individuals you are condemning. Because when we lose that….we are truly damned.
January 27, 2010 at 6:03 AM
@ Bean and Joan
I am not grand standing. All one has to do is re-read the post to understand the problem with BDSM, at least generally.
The problem is this. If one is serious about adding justice, equality, and peace to the world they must realize that it does not simply mean repressing all that has had its turn (white male conservative heterosexuality) and validating all that has, until the present, operated outside of that construct. By this I mean certain fetishes, alternative lifestyles, so on and so forth.
Our sexuality is not sacred, in fact it can’t be when it most definitely informs our worldview and how we relate to (and treat) others. It should be examined for it’s flaws, for the harms that it may cause others and what we can do minimize those harms, just like any aspect of our lives that may cause harm to another.
Whether or not someone can actually change their sexual construct in a way that reduces its exploitive potential is really a question only they can answer. Using its immutability as a justification, however, can hardly be praised.
Unless the world is only a place where the dominant assert their will against the weak, and the notion of human progress is illusory past the bounds of human nature, one has to believe an existence in which no one is necessarily harmed by the actions of another is possible. It will certainly not be attainable, however, if our sexuality continues to shield us from criticism for exploitive behavior we should truly be criticized for. I don’t see a meaningful difference between tying a woman up and beating her verses telling her to hold her hands behind her back and suck you until she literally pukes. Exploitive pornography is exploitive, and if you subscribe to the progressive morality described above, your participation in it becomes really hard to justify.
January 27, 2010 at 6:40 AM
Andrew, does this mean you’re no longer a porn user!?
January 27, 2010 at 7:19 AM
Saskia my point was that having a sexuality is not de facto proof of ANYTHING apart from whether or not you have a sexuality (and even that’s open to question given how much sexuality is culturally constructed see the eternal Angelina Jolie argument).
“It’s my sexuality” is not in and of itself a justification for anything. And how do you define ‘consenting’? And ‘Adult’? (A lot of BDSM advocates such as the often cited Pat Califia advocate sex with those under the age of consent).
The point is WHEREVER you draw the line you’re making an arbitrary value judgement. So you need something else in the mix. Like is this harming anyone?
January 27, 2010 at 7:22 AM
To the man whose wife has cancer.
No you should not have written that. You are using your wife’s illness to score cheap points on the internet.
Shame on you.
January 27, 2010 at 7:35 AM
Joan, as before:
“consent” isn’t a cut and dried concept, and anyone who pretends it is, is lying.
It also isn’t always a justification for anything, unless you think that Armin Meiwes (the german man who cooked and ate another fully consenting man) was well within his rights to do so.
Society (as a whole) does not accept consent as a justification for everything. Otherwise we would not have the ‘right to die’ debate.
I agree Andrew may be grandstanding, but actually asking the question “does having a desire mean you are always justified in acting on it” isn’t. It’s pretty central to the entire debate.
No man (or woman) is an island.
January 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM
ND
I still use porn, but I don’t lie to myself about what it entails. I don’t believe it is my “right” or contains an additional element of “privacy” simply because it is sexual. I also don’t pretend that my goals entail reducing the harm I cause others. Porn, like alcohol, like stubbornness, like lying, etc., are all things I abuse because I can get away with them to a certain degree, usually at another’s expense.
Even if I stopped using porn, I would probably still exploit women, probably through some variance of casual sex, favors I know I won’t return, or by taking advantage of some sort of duty she thought she owed me.
This is a conscious choice though, one I made after considering what it would entail for me to actually devote myself to a path of equality, justice, or peace. I wrote above that “Unless the world is only a place where the dominant assert their will against the weak, and the notion of human progress is illusory past the bounds of human nature, one has to believe an existence in which no one is necessarily harmed by the actions of another is possible.” Unfortunately I subscribe to the former theory, but it does not mean I shouldn’t hold people accountable for their inconsistencies when they purport to believe in the latter.
January 27, 2010 at 8:57 AM
@Orlando C
I am so sorry, wishing you both the best
January 27, 2010 at 12:50 PM
“Andrew, does this mean you’re no longer a porn user!?”
No shit. That comment is really rich coming from an admitted porn user. Not to mention a man who also seems to believe that rape might be perfectly understandable and acceptable for the good of the continuing the species. Oh, and someone who, with apparently no guilt whatsoever, participates in most of our society’s harmful practices that exploit others and has no intention of lessening those behaviors or changing them altogether.
Really, Andrew, you are an ass.
January 27, 2010 at 12:54 PM
“This suggests that you believe it’s possible to “do away” with a desire for kink.”
I do not know if it is possible to do away with a desire for kink altogether. I do know that it is possible to not engage in kink, and it is possible to engage in sex that isn’t kinky and find pleasure in it even if one does have a desire for kink. I know because I’ve done it.
January 27, 2010 at 3:41 PM
You don’t have to be a saint to recognize a hypocrite. Most of the people here seem like they would consider themselves nice people. Nice people do not engage in exploitive hobbies. I do not have to give up wanking (or anything else) to be able to figure that out.
January 27, 2010 at 4:02 PM
“No you should not have written that. You are using your wife’s illness to score cheap points on the internet. ”
I thought I might get that response. But you see the problem: when I present scholarly research on BDSM, I’m told that the results are invalid because it’s not personal experience. When I present my own personal experience (anonymously and in little detail), it is first trivialized and then I am told that it’s inavalid because it’s personal experience. Presumbably I should go back to scholarship. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Telling me that I should be silent because I’m a caregiver is an….interesting argument, but once again, it does not respond to what I’m saying. BDSM is stigmatized, I am providing an actual example of that that is real to me. As someone once said, “the personal is political.” Yes?
January 27, 2010 at 4:06 PM
“Even if I stopped using porn, I would probably still exploit women, probably through some variance of casual sex, favors I know I won’t return, or by taking advantage of some sort of duty she thought she owed me.”
Yep, still an ass.
January 27, 2010 at 5:07 PM
I’ve “consented” to things I really didn’t want to do.
January 27, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Kelly,
A great companion book to Hedge’s Empire of Illusion is Carol Gilligan’s The Birth of Pleasure, where she discusses within the framework of developmental psychology, the dissociation from authentic voice and knowledge that is a requisite of patriarchy. She uses the term “love” in association with authentic voice knowledge and relationship, which echos Hedges own plea for connection and truth as “love”.
It’s a short (200 pages) accessible, transformative read.
Andrew, you should give it a shot. Maybe it will shift your “conscious choice” to be an exploitive arsehole.
January 27, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Polly – Do you think it might have been possible to use “the man”‘s goddamn name while telling him that he’s shameful for bringing up his wife’s cancer to explain how anti-kink prejudice currently affects their lives?
Is it so incredibly difficult to spare a bit of the compassion you’d have freely shared with a woman who’s on “your side”? Enough to recognise that, while not every detail Orlando mentioned was necessarily salient, he was speaking from a place of pain? That (ironically, given your comment) part of his frustration is a general failure here of others to recognise the humanity of kinky people?
Which he called for you to recognise. And which you ignored.
Did you stop to consider that this is something which affects his wife as well, and not just him?
I’m beginning to think that you keep accusing others of trying to “score” on the internet largely because that’s all you’re trying to do. Or is it really that hard to remember that there are people on the other side of the screen you’re looking at?
Shame on you. Wow.
January 27, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Andrew – Okay, so you can’t answer the question. Perhaps the next time this topic comes up then, you might not say that it’s necessary to “do away” with [whatever] in order to be a good person if you don’t actually have meaningful suggestions on how to do that.
All one has to do is re-read the post to understand the problem with BDSM, at least generally.
Sorry, but I don’t find Deuce’s arguments compelling and never have. I have never found anti-porn arguments compelling, either, and I have been reading them for seven years. Initially from a point of having very little opinion on the topic at all. There’s just too many holes in them.
I can change my mind – I’ve done a 180 on other issues in the past. But anti-porn and anti-kink arguments have never risen to that level.
So I can’t really agree with your claims of pro-kink “hypocrisy.”
Faith –
I do know that it is possible to not engage in kink, and it is possible to engage in sex that isn’t kinky and find pleasure in it even if one does have a desire for kink. I know because I’ve done it.
I’ve certainly met people who have never achieved having “non-kinky” sex, even if it was only kinky in their heads. Makes me skeptical that everyone could forgo kink as has been suggested here, even if most people might be able to.
January 27, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Polly – I agree with the points in your most recent comment response to me. I don’t think that having a desire is always justification for doing something.
I personally don’t see some huge line between bdsm related sex and “regular” heterosexual interactions. I find the former to often be just an exaggeration of the latter, plus some costumes and props sometimes. That’s also why Andrew’s self-righteousness irritated me – I’m not arguing that it’s an objective truth that kinksters are not doing something “depraved” – I think that if the nature of bdsm exchanges are depraved, then so are many, if not most, types of sexual exchanges, period.
None of which is actually even what I took this post to be about, though. Why does any critique of extreme depictions of misogyny have to devolve into people making it about whether the things they happily do in their own lives are good or bad? Extreme depictions of misogyny are fair game for critique, period. And such critiques are NOT a persecution of kinky people themselves.
January 27, 2010 at 7:36 PM
Bean, when I used the mans goddam name the comment was discarded. I presumed he had been spammed.
January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM
And I am a heartless and evil woman, thorry. I wouldn’t have compassion for anyone who uses someone else’s illness to try to win an internet debate. Just as I don’t have compassion for a man who starts talking about the trauma of the time his wife/best friend was raped to try and win a debate on rape.
Such tactics are beneath contempt. They stink. And bean, I don’t give a shit what you or anyone else thinks of me.
January 27, 2010 at 7:40 PM
“I’ve “consented” to things I really didn’t want to do.”
Same here, through not knowing that there was a valid ‘no’, that ‘no’ was not selfish, that ‘no’ was my right as a human being, that the arguments presented to me were designed to manipulate me into unquestioning compliance.
It’s still there.
January 27, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Bean there are many, many people posting on here who’ve had painful experiences. I know about some of them, because I’ve been told privately, I don’t know about others. They don’t talk about them, because hey, they’re painful!
I DO NOT make cheap capital out of my experiences, or the experiences of people I love on the internet. I might speak in very general terms, about a woman being raped in a particular way for instance, to illustrate a situation, but I know that woman will never read what I’ve written, and won’t know it’s her I’ve referred to.
Orlando C’s wife, as she chucks up after her umpteenth bout of Chemo. “What are you doing darling”? “Oh just using your life threatening illness to try and win a silly argument on the internet dear.”
Yeah that’s the way you treat someone you love.
January 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM
I still use porn, but I don’t lie to myself about what it entails. I don’t believe it is my “right” or contains an additional element of “privacy” simply because it is sexual
Oh well that’s ok then. Shouldn’t this thread be called ‘hypocrisy corner’?
January 27, 2010 at 7:51 PM
polly – There are real people behind the screens. That you’re so venemously furious over being reminded of that is pretty telling.
Orlando – Sorry to hear about your partner’s condition. I hope that you don’t encounter any prejudice owing to your tastes in the future.
January 27, 2010 at 8:00 PM
I looked at that like this: what, exactly, does OrlandoC’s wife’s illness have to do with BDSM? I read the comment and got the gist, that she’d be unable to have children and hence they’d have to adopt and submit to questioning by the people who decide whether people are fit to adopt. During that questioning, they’d have to avoid mentioning that they’re into BDSM. I see the long string of thoughts that connect the illness to the issue at hand. I do not, however, think that it was in any way appropriate for him to detail his wife’s tragedy in service of the argument that BDSM fans are oppressed, because a) it’s a weak argument, and b) it’s shamelessly manipulative. As to a): the adoption agency folks aren’t going to ask you about your sex lives, and if they do, you have the option to ask them to mind their own business, and they won’t balk. Sex is private, after all. As for your desire not to lie, we all have that, but we all also keep things to ourselves that we think others might find disturbing. Do you talk to your grandma about BDSM? So why do you need to talk to the adoption people about it? And if you’re going to have such a hard time hiding it on a home visit, doesn’t that mean you’d have a hard time hiding it from the adopted child? Sorry, but I hope we’re all still on the same page about kids not needing to be exposed to their parents’ sexual activities. As to b): the connection between your wife’s illness and BDSM is so tenuous, so loose, such a stretch, that it’s almost non-existent. The idea that you may hypothetically some day have to be less than 100% open with some imaginary official who may or may not decide not to allow you to adopt some child that is as of yet a figment has so little to do with your current concerns that I can’t believe you have time to think about it. First off, it’s a bullshit concern that stems from a sense of entitlement to “self-expression” (read: forcing others to put up with your public sexual narcissism) that no one really deserves. Second, your future BDSM activities should not be on your mind right now, your wife’s comfort should be. We all feel horrible hearing that she is suffering. I’ve got two immediate relatives with cancer right now (though I won’t be bringing them up to argue that the porn industry is immoral, even though I’m sure I could make some mental pretzel that would allow me to do so). It sucks, it’s hard, it’s tragic, and we all feel sorry for you. You know that we do and will feel sorry for you and for her, and you are trying to use that to manipulate us into agreeing with your assertion that BDSMers are oppressed in the same way homosexuals are. That’s just fucking gross.
January 27, 2010 at 8:03 PM
James, we all know there are real people involved and we feel sorry for them. What I do not have any sympathy for is the attempt to use a tragedy to make a dishonest and manipulative argument.
January 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM
“And I have been told to go fuck myself at least once or twice.”
Only by me (twice), I think. Please don’t blame others for words that are purely mine.
January 27, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Bean – fuck you for your defense of Orlando’s world class douchebaggery.
Orlando – fuck you for being a passive aggressive liar with a martyr complex. That is the grossest bullshit I have seen on this whole fucking thread.
You and your wife have heterosexual privilege. I am quite fucking positive that adoption agencies – whether private or through the public foster/adoption system in a county or state – do not ask hetero couples whether or not they’re into bdsm. Any more than they would ask lesbian couples, like my friends who have been foster and then adoptive parents through the public system (because, unlike you and your wife, private agencies would not consider them, what with their being dykes and all), whether they just engage in cunnilingus and finger fucking or if there’s some strap-on play from time to time as well.
You will not be put in a position by home visitors where you have to lie about your sexual proclivities. And every single person/couple who tries to adopt is in the very same position – you have not been judged “no longer fit to have children without someone else’s permission” just because your wife can no longer get pregnant and you’re into bdsm. Jesus Christ his fucking self spent less time on the fucking cross than you do.
I am the most egregious overshare-er that I personally have ever met, and even *I* dont “casually, openly discuss” the details of the sex I like to have with friends, nor they with me. Certainly not with people I misjudge as friends but who would actually try and harm me with that info if I told them, which is the condition under which your imaginary freedom-to-tell-friends-gone-awry-thanks-to-prejudice scenario would have to happen in order to fit your bullshit claims.
I would characterize it more as obnoxious than honest and noble, to spill all that shit to people outside of very specific contexts.
I have a couple of friends where we do speak very frankly with each other about our sex lives, because we both feel like it, with each other. Most people in my life though, even those who for any number of reasons may know what I used to do for a living…no, there’s no reason for it. It’s not a shame-hiding thing, it’s a has-no-relevance thing. For you to pretend like society is just one big trap for us perverts wherein we’re required to lie and/or huddle in fear and/or suffer dire consequences if we fail at either – that is fucking dishonest and fucking insulting to the intelligence of everybody in this fucking thread, including any of your fellow douchebags.
If all you had done on this thread, Orlando, was try to suggest that there’s a mild stigma for kink practicioners, the fuck-off-ing would likely have been slim to none.
What you did actually do, though, was after I had agreed with you that there was mild stigma in some ways but also kept to my original point that the overall dynamic of male dominant/sadist and female submissive/masochist was promoted, glamorized, accepted, even outright expected – first you kept trying to deflect from that reality by continuing to harp on the even-by-your-standards mild stigma itself, and then you pop the fuck up and direct a comment at me about how sick your wife is with cancer and how you hope we can appreciate that this feels personal.
THAT is why I’m telling you to fuck off. This post was about female people not appreciating extreme depictions of misogyny as portrayed on a website named “kink.com” As stated before – it’s not named anything that implies the more extreme practices of some consensual bdsm, it’s just kink.com. For you to imply, with your passive aggressive “my wife’s got cancer and you’re hurting us!” comment about it being personal – for you to imply that it’s anything BUT personal for female people who see extremely misogynist depictions of femaleness itself and say “what the fuck?” about it – that is why I could tell you to go fuck yourself a million times and it would still never feel like enough.
Until such time as expressing a disapproving opinion about misogynist kink pornography is shown to have carcinogenic effects, you’ll get nothing but scorn from me for trying that shit.
January 27, 2010 at 8:32 PM
James I KNOW there are real people behind the screens. And I know stuff about a lot of them you don’t.
A real person who gives a shit about someone would not treat them with such scant respect.
January 27, 2010 at 8:34 PM
What you’re using James is an argument that’s been used to women over and over and over and over and over again. Oh you heartless bitch you’re not a good woman.
Talk to the hand James.
January 27, 2010 at 8:35 PM
And sorry ND but I’m going to have to give up reading your blog. This shit is sick. And I’m not talking about kink.com.
January 27, 2010 at 8:36 PM
“I’ve certainly met people who have never achieved having “non-kinky” sex, even if it was only kinky in their heads. Makes me skeptical that everyone could forgo kink as has been suggested here, even if most people might be able to.”
I suspected you might respond with something to that effect. And I’m also sure that I’ll likely get slammed for what I’m about to say, but I’m going to say it anyway…
If a person can -only- get aroused by kinky sex, if they are completely unable to enjoy or fantasize about non-kinky sex, then frankly, I believe that they have greater issues than whether or not the radical feminists really are great, big censoring meanies.
January 27, 2010 at 9:02 PM
I hope that you won’t, Polly. I don’t think anyone here, other than James and Bean (whose comments I’m now going to have to read before allowing), doesn’t see how fucked up that was.
January 27, 2010 at 9:34 PM
Funny thing is, I’ve gone to a lot of effort reminding the pornsick men on these threads that pornstitution involves real human beings, and is deeply personal.
Their response to me has either been ridicule or cold lack of acknowledgement. I hoped for better. Silly me. I forgot women aren’t human.
January 27, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Excellent point, Laurelin.
January 27, 2010 at 9:58 PM
Deuce – Looking at the comments I’ve left here before, but which were not posted, I’m very hard-pressed to believe that I’ve ever been on some automatic-post list of yours.
January 27, 2010 at 10:03 PM
I have no automatic post list, but I moderate all comments. I’ve been doing so without reading them lately, which I will not continue to do.
January 27, 2010 at 10:05 PM
My presumption was that Orlando’s wife is a woman…
January 27, 2010 at 10:54 PM
Laurelin,
You are right, I will think about whether the cold look I am taking is really what I want. No sarcasm.
January 28, 2010 at 12:09 AM
No shit, sherlock James.
The points are
1) she has been mentioned so that we will have sympathy for Orlando, not for her own sake
2) it doesn’t make the behaviour of you and other pornsick males towards me and other survivors any more acceptable or anything other than disgusting.
Now off you fuck. Go. You’ve had plenty of chances to apologise, and you have done nothing. Stay the hell away from me, tosspot.
January 28, 2010 at 1:09 AM
Right, last post for me, because this thread will never ever end, and it’s just becoming hurtful nastiness on both sides.
I don’t really give a shit either way – the argument is academic for me, and I can see both the side that says kink.com profits from the abuse of women, and the side that says kink.com satisfies a perfectly natural desire of some fetishists to witness consensual BDSM porn. I’m anti-censorship, but anti-mysogyny, so yeah I’m sitting on the fence because I don’t pretend to be some arch fucking know-all with the right to dictate to everyone else what’s right and what’s wrong – my previous comment was for the sake of argument, nothing more, because I thought there were glaring holes in some of the more extreme anti-kink arguments which weren’t being addressed by the kink advocates (no one took me up on them, but I’ve carried on reading anyway and been shocked by how accusatory and personal this has all got – sure it’s a sensitive issue, but how about playing nice for a moment or two? we’re all human beings, after all, and each of us deserves just a modicum of respect from the rest, right…?).
Anyway, this is a comment I’m making again because no one else has addressed it, and because I actually got rather riled about this particular issue, for some strange reason. It goes back to Andrew’s earlier comment, which went a little something like this:
The whole point of being “a good person” is doing away with those urges to begin with, NOT hiding behind the fact that you found someone just as depraved as you to share and legitimize your “kinkiness”.
Andrew, quite apart from your use of loaded terms like ‘depraved’, I’d like to ask if you really think that a person’s sexual preferences/urges is in ANY WAY indicative of a person’s overall ‘goodness’? Because if you do, and that’s seriously intended as a point against kink.com, I’m quite happy to sit on the other side of the fence. I couldn’t give two shits what Jesus or Hitler got up to in the bedroom, and knowing wouldn’t remotely sway my opinion on which one was a “good person” and which was a “bad person”. The fact that you would even begin to suggest that an argument as complex and volatile as this one can be boiled down and simplified in such grossly retarded terms marks you out as either an Olympic-class moron, or a Heavyweight Troll. Either way, I’d rather not read another word of what you have to say, since it’s so plainly stupid. May I suggest that you either cut back on the broad judgementalism and actually engage in what has – infrequently, I’ll admit – been an interesting debate, or else just shut the fuck up?
Ok, I’m out. I hope this thread brings subsequent readers some kind of pleasure, all it’s brought me is frustration and despair for apparently intelligent people’s inability to empathise and discuss like grown-ups.
January 28, 2010 at 4:15 AM
Sal,
It doesn’t matter what room of the house Hitler masturbates in, or Jesus, or you or I. Porn has had a huge affect on the way I view women. In fact, the men I know who use the most porn are the worst at treating women as human beings. This isn’t an accident, and I don’t even want to guess what their fetishes are.
Wouldn’t you think it was hypocritical to pall around donating money to breast cancer research, buying vegan food, and making sure your carbon footprint was low, just to get home and watch a million women exploit themselves for your masturbatory pleasure? Finding just one “real life” woman to tie a leash around and whip isn’t much better.
Before I can respect someones world perspective I need to see them commit to it. Leading a double life with regards to exploitive fetishes does not add credibility to someones message. I might disagree or have reservations with 99% of what ND says, but one thing that I don’t think is very disputable is the fact that porn and mysoginist sex play has a nessecarily negative impact on women as a group.
January 28, 2010 at 4:32 AM
What Joan Kelly said.
January 28, 2010 at 8:43 AM
OrlandoC,
My sympathies to you and especially to your wife. May she swiftly recover from the cancer without relapse.
January 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM
“I might disagree or have reservations with 99% of what ND says, but one thing that I don’t think is very disputable is the fact that porn and mysoginist sex play has a nessecarily negative impact on women as a group.”
Then STOP fucking engaging in it. Until you do, your words are just empty, and quite frankly, disgusting.
January 28, 2010 at 6:01 PM
OrlandoC:
I also, as a survivor of a brush with cancer, would like to add my sympathy and good wishes. I remember how dealing with it can be a distorting lens through which everything in one’s life is suddenly viewed. I hope that there are those among your friends and family stepping in to care for you both during this most difficult time.
January 28, 2010 at 6:02 PM
hi everyone,
I may not post that much in this thread because I’m probably not the target of the dare; I don’t use porn (it’s not really a principle, I just get off fine from reading, writing, and thinking) and I’m not sexually active (again, not really a principle; I haven’t been in a situation where I wanted to/was ready to have sex with someone who was also interested in me). However, I am a sadomasochistic person. I think about some of the things that are apparently in this porn, and if I did watch porn, this is probably the kind I’d watch. I don’t generally have sexual reactions to ideas that don’t have some kind of distress, violence, or power exchange involved. This has been the case since I was a kid.
I don’t hate or want to oppress women. I am a woman, so that would be kind of counterproductive. I’m also a lesbian. I don’t feel that my sexuality is about men at all. Obviously a woman can’t live in this world without experiencing patriarchy, but in a lot of ways I’ve gotten off lightly; I have feminist parents, I have never experienced sexual assault, etc. Also, because I’m gay, I think most of the guys I am friends with have more respect for women than the average guy. If a guy only spends time with women to try and have sex with them, obviously there’s no reason for him to be friends with me–so my male friends are a self-selecting group that way. It’s hard for me to imagine that my sadomasochism could be a reaction to the patriarchy, when I’ve been so lucky compared to many women who aren’t sadomasochistic.
I don’t think my sexuality is especially tragic, and I definitely don’t think it’s the result of my opinions, my self-hatred, or my hatred for others. It doesn’t stem from an inability to be a moral or healthy person, I don’t think. I can’t speak about kink.com because I’ve never been there. But I just think that listing a lot of images that people look at, think about, or act out in order to have an orgasm, and then making statements about What Kind of People those people are, is kind of messed up. Sex is pretty strange, you know?
AWV
January 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM
AWV:
Amen. Sex and desire, are indeed a puzzle. One which we have yet to even agree upon what the corner pieces look like.
January 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM
The topic certainly seems to have staying power.
January 31, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Heh, ND talking of “bratty condemnations” is just a little bit funny. Fuck it, I’ve unsubscribed now, so I’m done.
Just to say, Andrew, your anecdotal evidence about your friends is absurd – how do you know which ones watch the most porn? How do you know what type of porn they watch? How do you know it’s the porn that has made them “the worst at treating women as human beings” and not that fact which has driven them to consuming so much porn? And what room Jesus, Hitler, you or I masturbate in has fuck-all to do with my point, which is simply that if you judge people as good or bad based on nothing more than their sexual inclinations, then your morality is fucked up, and you are in fact a bad person for being so closemindedly prejudiced. If a firefighter saves my family from a burning building, then goes home and watches porn that wouldn’t be to my tastes, should I disregard his/her public philanthropy and focus instead on what s/he chooses to do behind closed doors, using that as a stick to beat them as a pervert and bad person?
If you see everything in such plain black and white, you’ll go around fucking a lot of people off and making a lot of bad calls. Yes, a lot of porn is exploitative and reprehensible. Yes, a lot of people who watch that porn can use it as an excuse for their corrupted/warped mindset in their attitudes to others. Neither of these facts means that everyone who watches porn is a Bad Person.
You asked (apparently rhetorically, but I’m not sure why):
“Wouldn’t you think it was hypocritical to pall around donating money to breast cancer research, buying vegan food, and making sure your carbon footprint was low, just to get home and watch a million women exploit themselves for your masturbatory pleasure?”
Well, no. Donating to breast cancer research, buying vegan food and maintaining a low carbon footprint are all socially Good Things. Watching a million women (sounds a lot to me – how much porn are you watching!?) exploit themselves for sexual kicks may be an Okay Thing, a Bad Thing or a Terrible Thing (depending on the extent of exploitation and your own personal views on the nature of porn), but it doesn’t contradict the first three. Hypocritical would be to campaign against kink.com while owning a membership to the site. Or perhaps posting self-righteous drivel on a radfem website, whilst failing to live up to the standards you prejudge others by.
“Before I can respect someones world perspective I need to see them commit to it.”
So basically you go around in life with no respect for most peoples’ “world perspective”, since you neither know what it is, nor have seen them commit to it? What utter garbage. “Good” people (and if you’re in any position to define what one is, you really ought to be at least *trying* to live up to that definition) treat other people with respect as a matter of course, treat others as innocent until proven guilty, and don’t go round demanding proof that others are 100% pure holy souls.
“Leading a double life with regards to exploitive fetishes does not add credibility to someones message.”
If it’s a double life, then the two lives do not intermingle – if I work as a buttoned-down type in an office all week but lead a double life as a Heavy Metal fanatic, that means that I do not show up at work in a Slayer tee-shirt. By definition, double lives are separate aspects of a person’s life, and behaviour acceptable in the one does not necessarily carry across to the other. So how does someone living a double life involving ‘exploitative’ (I use the apostrophes there as I think, in cases such as Orlando’s, where he’s a consensual, loving, grateful sub to his [tragically unwell, but that's beside the point] wife and Domme, the notion of ‘exploitation’ becomes absurd) fetishes have any sway on that person’s credibility in their public life, exactly? If you don’t see it, how can you judge it?
I’m sorry Andrew, but you strike me as a lunatic. Your arguments sway from holier-than-thou definitions of some unrealistic ideal of the Good Person, to painfully unrepentant admissions that you’re actually quite a horrible person and don’t seem to care. Somewhere between all that you manage to piss off everyone whilst insisting you actually agree with most of them. In spite of your best efforts, your arguments are neither coherent nor logical, and I get the impression that everything you post is intended to do nothing more than get an angry response. You push buttons. If that’s a fair description of your motivation for posting here, then I pity you, because there’s obviously not a lot of fun in your life. If, in fact, you actually believe all the crap you’ve spouted here, then I advise you to seek help, because – putting aside peoples’ various views on ND’s critique of kink.com – your facility to be so condemnatory of others for failing to live up to standards you admit you cannot begin to aspire to yourself, would suggest that you have a rather deeply fragmented personality and an unhealthy disregard for your fellow human beings. At the very least, you’re just pretty dumb (and not for your opinions, but your inability to realise how fundamentally contradictory they actually are).
Anyway, I won’t bother reading if you bother to reply because I’m not coming back here anymore, so feel free to take some cheap shots. I hope you one day manage to become a Good Person – whether that involves changing your behaviour or just your arbitrary conditions for achieving that status.
Bye bye, everybody.
March 11, 2010 at 4:25 AM
Ok, this is going to be interesting.
1) Biology – We are apes, so sex Male Dominate Female Submissive is natural, the base line if you will. The biggest strongest male, gets the females. Natural selections main point, you only get to pass on your genes if you win the mating dance. This is not an arguement against people, but lots of things about sexuality keep coming up, and this basic fact is not mentioned. If anything one of our closest relatives is one of the few animals that likes sex, partner’s sex irrelvate, and they even masturbate, so a gay gene would make sense, because we might even start Bi. This is about Hardware, not software, which can only really start from the moment we are born, sort of.
2) Nearly every single thing you do in life is dominate or submissive. You either make the rules or obey them. Even in the bedroom, it might even change during, but someone is calling the shots.
3) Porn is aimed at men. Men buy the most of it. Men are visual stimulated, so it makes sense. The reason that most BDSM porn is Male Dom/Female Sub is because it sells to non-kink people too, and most men are straight. Male gay porn has some of the tightest restrinctions anyway so a nightmare marketplace, but Kink.com is in it too.
4) To follow on from 3, from Kink.com to the Ikea adverts it is about selling stuff. These people are not idiots, in fact they are really smart, and they know how to get the most amount of people to put their hands in their pockets. Sex sells, so go back to that billboard, and check the product, because they want someone to pay them.
5) The people at Kink.com are having fun, they enjoy their work, because if they did not, they would do something else. They have invented most of the computer tech they use, people are seeking them out to learn how to run their sort of web based business. Mainstream media, not other porn people. That said, do you think for a moment, that they take a risk of being sued? Everything they do is on the up and up, because they do not want to go to court. Kinky people lose in court.
6) Want some legal stuff to look at try Spanner, or the new porn law in the UK. Get done under that, and everyone goes to jail. You are actual the same as a child molester for having consentual sex, and that includes the sub/victim.
7) Orlando C – Good luck, and I hope all goes well. I get what he said. If they were out, they would be screwed. Gay, or Lesbian couples depends were you live, but everyone hates kinky.
April 17, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Geasa: “We are apes, so sex Male Dominate Female Submissive is natural, the base line if you will. The biggest strongest male, gets the females”
- speak for yourself there.
I’m am so tired of people whipping out the ol’ “it’s nature at work” trash. It’s tired, K?
April 18, 2010 at 1:07 AM
@geasa, get off my side, thanks.
May 24, 2010 at 11:14 PM
I have read through a lot of these posts and both sides make valid arguments.
Nine Deuce- I see what you mean. Kink.com has aspects of its site that make me a little uneasy. It is still a taboo in our community. People are far from accepting something so strange as the BDSM lifestyle. However, as strange and as wrong as you believe it is, it is also a person’s choice whether they want to do that sort of thing. It stems from the fact that in the BDSM lifestyle, it is not the Dom/me who is in charge but the sub. The sub has a safeword which he or she can say at any point in time and everything stops right then and there. Nothing in those sessions if properly done, should be non-consentual. Everything is what that sub wants to be done to them. I heard a very wise person say once “To each his own.”
Now, I am not trying to get anyone mad. I just wanted to get my opinion out there. Now I am a sub myself, collared by my boyfriend/Master but I will not go into a personal story because I know that is not what you put this up here for. I have known about the lifestyle since I was in high school and did not actually begin to participate in it until about two years ago. What I give you today is merely my opinion, not a personal experience but if you want to heat one, then I will be willing to provide one for you if you wish. Otherwise, peace be with you and I hope you are well.
Sincerely,
Ana
May 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM
If the safeword is said after the harmful act necessitating the use of the word has already occurred, then it’s not really preventing harm but allowing harm. Safewords are the excuse that allows “freebie whoopsie” harmful acts of too-far or too-painful or too-scaring or too-scarring to happen in the first place.
True consent by a sensitive partner looks more like “Is it okay if I…?” than “I’m going to do something possibly harmful to see your reaction.” Otherwise you’re letting a bully punch you in the arm and ask, “Did that hurt?” until he inevitably hurts you.
May 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM
The whole scene is an “Is it ok if I…?” A true Dom/sub relationship is when the Dom/me knows the sub’s limits but only gently pushes them on their soft limits (stuff they won’t normally do but wouldn’t object to doing) and not pushing their hard limits (things they outright refuse to do). It is a mutual respect.
May 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM
The problem remains one person -the person committing and getting pleasure from the sadistic act of dominance- gets to decide the highly subjective difference between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ and can only know after being safeworded that they have truly hurt someone.
It’s a similar problem I have with testing prostitutes for HIV; it’s too late to prevent the harm after the tests come back positive.
Fusing sadism, domination, and pain with sex through repetition is not the same as exploring new body contortions in a game of Twister. When the entire point is to cause pain and distress for the somatic rush, the consequences of the inevitable mistakes written into the scene under the concept of safewords are much more serious than tumbling after you’ve failed to reach the green circle with your left foot.
May 26, 2010 at 11:11 AM
Mary Daly did a great analysis on how in patriarchal culture there is a fear of Pure Lust, real geniune physical pleasure and love of life. Pleasure that doesn’t damage. Pleasure that revels in Be-ing, in creativity and growth and beauty and individuality. Pain isn’t a just another form of pleasure, it’s the opposite. Sadomasochism and bondage is reveling in destruction and pain, in doing damage. In stunting growth and creativity. It’s life-hating, sex-hating, pleasure-hating. There’s nothing ‘rebellious’ or shocking about it, BDSM is the religion of patriarchy.
May 27, 2010 at 8:28 AM
Sam,
The problem you are having with BDSM is a problem you could have with anything sexual. For example, if two people are making out and the hand of one goes somewhere the other does not want, eliciting a “no” or a “stop,” an irreversible harm has occurred but that does not mean that people shouldn’t make out. Intercourse would cause the same dilemma for you too. If a woman feels that a man is going too hard and objects, has an irreversible harm been committed that should put that woman off sex itself? Switching the tables a bit, what if a man is receiving oral sex and the woman is to vigorous, causing discomfort, should he then abstain from all oral? Even a massage that ran too deep would violate this rule; personally I would still voluntarily run the risk.
The mechanics of BDSM in a relationship context are much different than in a porn viewing context. In the porn context illusions of who is in control and what they can do are created for the viewer’s pleasure, giving him an impression that BDSM is equivalent to things like rape and torture but in a way that is somehow socially acceptable. In the relationship context the boundaries are well defined and nobody is acting under any illusions about what the parties are after. Of course, somebody in a BDSM relationship could willingly take things too far for their own selfish gratification, but this problem isn’t limited to BDSM.
The problem with people who practice BDSM is that they, like pornography, can carelessly create impressions in the minds of other people that they have a golden ticket to practice rape, slavery, and torture and that it is delicious. It reaffirms stereotypes about how men and woman should operate on a sexual level that are harmful to adopt. I don’t believe anyone willingly in those relationships is actually being harmed, however.
May 27, 2010 at 10:26 AM
@ sam
If the safeword is said after the harmful act necessitating the use of the word has already occurred, then it’s not really preventing harm but allowing harm.
Any more than, “No, stop,” sam? Because that’s what a safeword means: No. Stop.
And contrary to popular belief, there are a great many people into BDSM who do not use a safeword, and just say, “No,” and, “Stop.”
That Person A has gone a bit too far, or something has already gone wrong for Person B, is true of any situation in which Person A would have to say, “No, stop,” during sex.
The problem remains one person -the person committing and getting pleasure from the sadistic act of dominance- gets to decide the highly subjective difference between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’
Absolutely incorrect. The sub/bottom decides that.
(Also, dominance is not always sadistic, FYI. There are people who play with D/s themes in ways which do not involve pain at all.)
May 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Fuck off, Andrew.
Bean, people defending BDSM often insist there’s more clarity and pre-negotiation than in non-BDSM relationships. I don’t believe that, and the use of safewords supports my disbelief.
Any more than, “No, stop,” during sex
Intentionally seeking to inflict pain is very different from seeking to provide pleasure. The likelihood and the consequences of mistaken moves when inflicting “some pain but not too much pain” are far greater than the likelihood and the consequences of mistakes meant to bring “all pleasure and no pain.”
May 28, 2010 at 12:53 PM
I don’t know that there’s always necessarily more pre-negotiation (although that may be many people’s experience), but your previous comment suggested there was none at all – as if a safeword exists so that the dom can say, “Now I’m going to do whatever I want, and if you really hate it, say the magic word.” No, that’s not what a safeword is for.
I don’t believe that, and the use of safewords supports my disbelief.
I entirely fail to see how it supports that belief, sam. I wouldn’t trust anyone who thought that negotiations would cover absolutely all possible circumstances, so a way to convey, “No,” should always exist.
Intentionally seeking to inflict pain is very different from seeking to provide pleasure.
You say that as though there is no way in which non-kinky sex is ever harmful.
Accidental injuries? Sudden medical emergencies? Traumatic flashbacks? There are plenty of circumstances in which harm could already be done by the time someone says, “Stop,” yet we continue to take the risk by having sex.
May 28, 2010 at 11:21 PM
“Fuck off Andrew?” How erudite an argument. Especially since Andrew doesn’t seem to deviate too far from your position Sam, even if he does give those in BDSM relationships the courtesy of assuming they know their particular situations better than he as an outside observer might.
May 29, 2010 at 7:56 AM
“I don’t believe anyone willingly in those relationships is actually being harmed, however.”
Damn. I thought (hoped) Andrew was gone. Andrew, I’ve been in BDSM relationships. And, yes, I was harmed while willingly involved in a BDSM relationship. The type of harm I incurred could not have occurred in a sexual activity that didn’t not involve a power exchange.
Do not speak of things that you do not understand. Just because someone consents to something does not mean that they can not be harmed by it.
May 29, 2010 at 8:52 AM
Faith, I will speak of this because I do understand.
I have been in regular old vanilla relationships, and BDSM relationships, and no I was not harmed while willingly involved in a BDSM relationship. The type of harm I incurred while in the vanilla relationship could not have occurred in a sexual activity that involved the negotiation and extensive communication required by a good BDSM relationship. Bad people come in all shapes and sizes. Your experience is valid and true and not at all unique. So is mine.
May 29, 2010 at 10:11 AM
sneeky, Andrew’s a troll who specializes in missing the point. Read his comments on other topics for evidence of his masterful derailment techniques.
sam, I like what you say. I think it goes hand in hand with the concepts of Enthusiastic Consent and (I’ll call it) punk-rock consent, ie, in order for consent to be truly and freely given, all sexual acts must be weighed as they occur.
For example, in a non-BDSM scenario, one may consent to having sex, but that doesn’t mean one is consenting to being donkey-punched or anally penetrated. (Or any number of other things; some people don’t like to be touched in certain places, certain techniques and positions cause them discomfort, etc., and then there is the apparently eternal debate of ‘where should he blow his load’ if you’re having sex with a bepenised individual.)
Thus, “Is this okay?” and/or “May I?”, and so forth, are essential things to say -before every change in sexual activity.- Before everything.
People may whine that this isn’t “sexy”, but … to avoid even mentioning everything that’s wrong with that statement, let’s distill it to, Feeling fear or discomfort isn’t very “sexy” either, so what’s more important to you? Your sexy, or your partner’s comfort?
Thus, if true consent is established, enthusiastic consent must then be given. ie, saying “Yes please!” instead of just “I guess” — or saying nothing.
Otherwise one is at best masturbating with another person’s body, and at worst committing rape.
In case anyone’s wondering, I’m with GraceMargaret on “is BDSM okay or isn’t it?” That shit is a primo numero uno replicator of patriarchal norms and is antithetical to actual enjoyment of sex. Full stop.
May 29, 2010 at 11:34 AM
I don’t see why people call us disgusting and perverted and just plain wrong. It is OUR choice. Not anyone else’s. We choose to be like this, it isn’t forced upon us, it is a gift. Everyone who enters into a good and safe Dom/sub relationship is doing it by choice. They should be going into it with open eyes and minds, otherwise, it’s not a proper relationship.
May 30, 2010 at 9:29 AM
“Bad people come in all shapes and sizes. Your experience is valid and true and not at all unique. So is mine.”
Sneeky,
You are free to have your experience. I never stated otherwise. But the idea that harm can not occur in BDSM relationships just because such extensive negotiations have taken place is nonsense. So is the idea that as long as consent has been given and all participants are willing no harm can take place. The relationship I was in involved over 4 months of communication and negotiation before -anything- took place. So, yea, you are fully welcome to say that you were not harmed by your relationship. I’m not going to argue with you over that. But I absolutely do disagree that harm can not take place in BDSM relationships just because extensive negotiations have taken place. I will argue with this because I’m walking talking proof that that particularly idea is utter bullshit.
May 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM
sneeky, this is like a chicken-or-egg scenario.
If one is in a relationship with a person who willingly causes harm to another person, one will be harmed, whether the relationship is “vanilla” (I hate that term! will explain in another comment) or not.
If one is in a relationship with a person who does not willingly cause harm to another person, one will not (willingly) be harmed, regardless of the type of relationship.
However, it seems logical that a BDSM relationship statistically increases one’s chances of falling into column A as opposed to column B, as BDSM relationships are -based- upon causing harm to other people under the guise of “pleasure.”
If we’re playing My Experience Is Definitive cards, here’s a pretty generalized one. See, people get harmed in “vanilla” (gag me with a spoon!) relationships all the time. They get emotionally and physically abused, raped, beaten down in every way, degraded, used, stolen from, even murdered.
But that doesn’t mean BDSM is -better-, or even GOOD. It just means that the abuse is explicit instead of implicit.
May 30, 2010 at 9:53 AM
This is why I don’t like the term “vanilla.” Others have written about why THEY don’t, now it’s my turn.
“Vanilla” is supposedly the most boring ice cream flavor. The standard basic. Right?
Leaving aside the fact that some people, myself included, like the vanilla flavor a lot (it can be just as strong and tasty as chocolate if you get the right kind) — what the hell kind of narcissism is it to dismiss all others’ experiences by saying they are the boring standard basic default?
A “vanilla” relationship doesn’t have to be boring. Most of mine have been exciting and fun, and not necessarily (and/or only) in the sexual sense. People can go to exciting places and do exciting things, and try to treat each other like human beings in ways that keep the doldrums from encroaching.
It’s all still patriarchal, as we do live in a patriarchy, and yes, sometimes people get emotionally hurt and sometimes in really big ways —
but the point is, simply “not being on a leash in public” or “not getting beaten and humiliated” or “not engaging in overt power plays and d/s dynamics” =/= “boring.”
“Vanilla” (or, non-BDSM) relationships can come in all kinds of stripes too. Like radical relationships, where the participants actively try to -disengage- power dynamics rather than replicating and amping them up. This works to varying degrees of success, as we do still live in The P and conditioning is strong — but to lump that in with “standard boring basic” is actually disgusting to me.
Question — do BDSMers seriously think every couple that isn’t whipping and humiliating each other, is just settling down with 2.5 children and a Golden Retriever, talking only about their financial future and what was on TV last night, and secretly being bored shitless by their partners and lives?
Because that’s what the term “vanilla” implies, and it’s a gross misnomer laden with oblivious privilege.
May 30, 2010 at 4:13 PM
No one is calling you disgusting and perverted, we’re questioning the reasons people think mixing sex and power is cool, considering the fact that sex is used as a tool of oppression against women.
May 30, 2010 at 4:22 PM
the thing you people seem to be missing is that the Dom/me is NOT in power…the sub is…yes…it is not impossible for someone to be hurt when there is a scene going on…it will happen, but you need to A) Be prepared for every possible scenario and B) know your partner’s limits…the sub is even remotely nervous or uncomfortable, they can say what they call a “slow down” word. It means “wait, check on me before you continue.” The most common is yellow but words tend to vary. If you are a good Dom/me, then you will know what to do when your sub uses the yellow word.
May 30, 2010 at 8:19 PM
Disgust and perversion tends to only get brought up by BDSMers.
Coincidence?
I’m a radical feminist. I don’t think sex, even BDSM sex, is disgusting and perverted.
I realize I have used the term ‘disgust’ on this very thread, so I’ll explain. Personally, I use the term ‘disgust’ for things that make me think ‘ew’ or ‘gag me,’ ie, rotten garbage, cockroaches, and unexamined privilege. Not sex.
Your unexamined privilege disgusts me. Not your predilection towards conflating sex and violence/power.
Your predilection towards conflating sex and power is perhaps a perversion, but only in the dictionary sense of the term (that it is a corruption, as in, society has somehow managed to corrupt the totally natural act of sex to the point that some people cannot have it without torturing another human being while having it).
The fact that you have sex and the sex that you have are not perverted.
Is this clear? I realize this is esoteric, and also that I should probably shut up about the topic.
May 30, 2010 at 10:26 PM
I just find it hilarious that BDSM people think they’re breakin’ the rules. A proper Christian marriage is the quintessential dominant/submissive, master/servant relationship. Same shit, just more leather.
May 31, 2010 at 2:34 AM
Joy, your perceptions of the word “vanilla” and its usage are your own. Don’t go trying to pin them to other people.
I’ve run across a small number of kinky folks who look down on those who aren’t kinky as “boring,” but in my experience that’s not generally a point of view which is well-regarded or widely shared.
Even if it were a common view, I really fail to see the “privilege” inherent in that, and I’d like to know why you decided to throw that term in.
However, it seems logical that a BDSM relationship statistically increases one’s chances of falling into column A as opposed to column B, as BDSM relationships are -based- upon causing harm to other people under the guise of “pleasure.”
No, they’re not. They’re based on mutual pleasure. I feel certain there are any number of submissives and masochists who wouldn’t appreciate your use of scare quotes there to imply their experiences of pleasure aren’t real.
May 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM
Joy,
Thanks for the comment on “vanilla”. I utterly loathe that term. It’s one of the many things that caused me to get fed-up with the BDSM community. The sex that I have when I am not engaging in BDSM is not “vanilla sex”. It’s sex. It isn’t boring, basic, or plain. The sex that I have that does not involved BDSM is, or at least can be, fucking incredible. Positing any sex that does not involve BDSM as “plain” or “boring” is just insulting.
May 31, 2010 at 8:47 AM
“the thing you people seem to be missing is that the Dom/me is NOT in power…the sub is”
I get really tired of this argument too. For one thing, safewords are not always used. For another, subs will often not use their safewords because they are so hung up on pleasing their doms that they are afraid of using them and displeasing their doms. Even in situations where a safe word is used the dom is still the one in power because even after negotiations have taken place it is the dom that decides what happens and when. Yes, the sub can stop it (conceivably) but as has already been pointed out, by that point it’s too damn late. The damage has already occurred.
May 31, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Faith, a good sub is trained to understand that they have the rights that if ANYTHING scares them or starts to bother them, then they can use what is called the “slow down” word. It allows the Dom/me to check on their sub to see if they are alright. Bad things can occur and the word is used but the damage is already done, I understand that. But you can be physically hurt in sex unrelated to BDSM as well and stop can be said but as you already stated the damage is done. So, yes there is a higher risk when having sex the BDSM way,
People who are into BDSM are just like everyone else. We have jobs, we have families, we like the same things that other people like. We just have a different approach to our sex lives, that is all.
May 31, 2010 at 6:48 PM
Nice try, Bean, but Faith’s weighing in immediately after yours kinda negated the whole “It’s all in your head” thing you tried to pull.
1. If you are talking about non-BDSM sex at all, why bother to use the word ‘vanilla’ when you know it has such connotations? Maybe it doesn’t for you, but it obviously does for MANY, many people.
Call it “non-BDSM sex.”
2. The privilege of which I speak comes in saying one’s experience is better than others’, ie, BDSM is somehow better/more exciting/etc than “vanilla” (as Faith also commented, synonymous with “boring”) existence.
It’s like if I, a brunette with glasses, said everyone who was not a brunette with glasses was dull. That privileges me, of course, because what am I? Well, I already told you. So a BDSMer saying everything that’s not BDSM is “vanilla/boring” is almost laughable, because, what? Why? To whom?
When we argue against BDSM, we aren’t saying “non-BDSM is better.” We’re saying “why would one engage in BDSM? What forces actually drive one to derive pleasure from hurting other people or being hurt? Where does this come from and why do people still do it?”
Some people do like it, which doesn’t make them “better” or “worse.” That brings me to
3. Some people do derive pleasure from pain, but if we are talking about pain, let’s call it what it is. Pain. If we are talking about pleasure that is not derived from pain, let’s call it pleasure.
If you absolutely must, call pleasure derived from pain exactly that — pleasure derived from pain.
Because lumping it in with, say, the kind of good and non-painful feelings I can get from a totally egalitarian experience with my vibrator, is kind of disturbing.
Pain is pain. Pleasure is pleasure. Again, what forces drive one to mix the two?
In closing, sorry, Bean, in this case I’m not going to change my discourse to avoid hurting some (unspecified) “masochists’” (I did it again! because I think “masochism” is a socially constructed bunch of nonsense, just like “masculinity” and “femininity” are! wow!) feelings.
It’s like telling feminists to stop talking about feminism because some dudes’ (and ladies’, somehow) fee-fees might get stepped upon if they knew. Or not to protest against war, because what about the veterans’ feelings?! Or say Exxon is bad, because some nice people work for Exxon!
Sure. Let me get on that right now. Right after people start being equally considerate to all other people as well. Right after people stop making racist, sexist, ableist, etc jokes, raping people, and using the word “vanilla”.
Are we there yet? No? Okay then. Tough luck. If someone gets offended because some internet feminist used scare quotes in a critique of socialized behavior, then so be it.
June 1, 2010 at 4:00 AM
I wasn’t trying to derail, in fact, if one reviews my comments on this particular post they would see that I agree whole heartedly with most here that using sex as force, against women, to reinforce hierarchy and power is problematic.
What I meant when I said that willing participants in BDSM are not harmed was that that there is no inherent harm involved in consensual BDSM “play” in the relationship context. There is lots of potential for abuse and that potential for abuse may not have arisen but for the BDSM encounter, but such potential exists outside of the BDSM context as well. As soon as conduct becomes non-consensual and the actor is made aware of this but continues anyway, it stops being BDSM and starts being rape.
With regards to Ana’s point regarding “topping from the bottom” (as it’s called), I don’t think it can be dismissed simply by saying that the person in control has a disproportionate ability to “damage” their partner by engaging in non-consensual behavior. This can happen in literally any sexual encounter and this fact is a large part of the logic behind the notion of affirmative consent. It is problematic, but has nothing to do with BDSM itself. The fact that some BDSM play might heighten the risk of sexual abuse is relevant, but a lot of other variables surrounding the sexual encounter might heighten that risk as well, such as a significant strength differential, an aggressive personality, etc. If one criticizes it on these grounds they must also criticize all sorts of relationships that may pose the same dangers. Personally, I am not prepared to do that.
BDSM is problematic for me because it gives viewers (as opposed to participants) the impression that unlimited dominance, abuse, humiliation, and torture is permissible and even desired by most women. I don’t think that any people who seriously practice BDSM would agree with that concept. Instead, this message is crafted by the porn industry to lure what are essentially rapists (men addicted to the notion of unlimited dominance) into buying memberships to their websites. When these types of people find reinforcement for their thoughts and fetishes in mainstream porn the careless portrayal of BDSM becomes problematic.
I don’t think people who enjoy this lifestyle should be made to change it, if that is even possible, but I think they should be very careful about how they portray it to others and engage in some self examination with regards to why they have that fetish to begin with.
Just to be clear: I don’t think BDSM is above reproach simply because there is purported consent. Faith has made this perfectly clear. I only think we should be careful about how we criticize it because many of the same criticisms could be leveled at relationships of which we might not actually disapprove. One thing that is unique to BDSM, however, is the fetishization of the power differential. For me at least, how this fetishization is transmitted to a global audience can create real problems for its consumers with regards to how they experience women. Kink.com is a perfect example of this and is what this post was actually about to begin with.
June 1, 2010 at 4:55 AM
“No one is calling you disgusting and perverted, we’re questioning the reasons people think mixing sex and power is cool, considering the fact that sex is used as a tool of oppression against women.”
Not wanting to derail the thread, but this has come up before, and I’ve never quite seen how this is possible.
How do you condemn acts as being wrong (as BDSM opponents do), without that being a condemnation of those that choose to do such things?
IMHO, this is an important question, given the repeated accusations of slut-shaming.
June 1, 2010 at 7:54 AM
Joy,
Your comments about the “vanilla” label are right on and exactly what I was getting at in my last comment over at the Porn Part 8 post.
I am fed up with the unnamed shaming that happens constantly and so much of it seems to be around women’s sexual behaviour – i.e. if you are not acting explicitly sexually 24/7, then you are a repressed prude. If you are a female who embraces sexual humiliation and exhibitionism, then you are that much more liberated and enlightened. Talk about a hall of mirrors!
An even worse crime is saying that any choice a woman makes may prop up the patriarchy – to imply that we have women playing Uncle Tom, is the greatest shame of all. It’s like there’s a grand flattening where anything a woman chooses to do is by default a feminist act and above reproach.
To be clear, I am not saying that BDSM by default reinforces the patriarchy, but I do think that there would be a whole lot less power/torture/humiliation “play” outside the hierarchy of a patriarchal culture. I am saying that the shaming flies both ways, as demonstrated by the young bottom on another thread that accused ND of always having sex on her back in the missionary position. (WTF??) All of this shaming makes for piss-poor discourse.
I know I’m not really adding anything new and I’m pretty sure that ND has written about how women keep one another down, but I cannot remember which post it was.
This has really been eating at me and I am wondering what others think about how best to discuss female Uncle-Tomism.
June 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM
“Faith, a good sub is trained to understand that they have the rights that if ANYTHING scares them or starts to bother them, then they can use what is called the “slow down” word.”
Ana,
There are many different ideas about what makes a “good” sub. The fact that you would even refer to a person as being trained is problematic in and of itself. You are not a dog. You are not in need of training. But since you brought up “training”, different tops will “train” their subs differently. Some will, for instance, insist that a sub have virtually no limits in order to be their sub. And, again, just because a sub is told that they have their safeword it absolutely does not mean that they will use them. Subs are generally people who wish to be pleasing to their partners. Far too many of them will push themselves far beyond their limits rather than risk feeling that they have not served their top properly.
As for the repeated statements from people on this thread that damage can happen in any sexual encounter, this is of course true. But in BDSM where one person is giving up control to another and the two parties are intentionally engaging in risky and painful behavior, that risk is magnified ten-fold. There’s a big difference between simply having sex and having sex while being restrained, gagged, and blindfolded. During sex a woman at least has some of her power and ability to defend herself. She has none of that while being restrained. That is part of the thrill for many tops. The fact that they know that their bottom is completely helpless.
“How do you condemn acts as being wrong (as BDSM opponents do), without that being a condemnation of those that choose to do such things?”
By doing exactly that. I condemn crack smoking, but some of the people I love most on this planet happen to be crack addicts. We all do things that are bad for us. We all do things that we shouldn’t do. The point is not to say you’re a horrible terrible awful person because you do these things. It’s to say, hey, maybe you should really consider not doing these things because you are hurting yourself or you are hurting other people.
I really don’t see why that distinction is so hard for some people to make.
June 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM
“With regards to Ana’s point regarding “topping from the bottom” (as it’s called),”
Ana didn’t say a thing about topping from the bottom. Topping from the bottom involved a sub attempting to direct the course of an encounter. This is an activity that is highly frowned upon in the BDSM community because it is considered disrespectful for a sub to attempt to top from the bottom. Using a safeword has shit-all to do with topping from the bottom.
June 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM
I always find it interesting how almost all criticism of BDSM practices involves criticising sadomasochistic practices (those involving pain) and then conflating those practices with all of BDSM. And, why is it when people say they’re concerned about the “conflation of sex and power” in BDSM they inevitably start talking about pain? Power =/= pain. Power may include the ability to inflict pain, yes, but they are not the same thing. Plus, it seems disingenuous to point to the conflation of sex and power in BDSM as if it’s somehow unique to BDSM. Sex and power are clearly conflated in culture all over the place without even referencing BDSM. Also, if one is going to have to start being clear on pleasure derived from pain, why is this limited to sexual practices? What about other body practices like exercise, medicine, and so on? Finally, since I think we all agree that sex can be and is used as a tool of oppression against women as a class (though falling more heavily on some women), so what is the fascination with something as uncommon as BDSM? I’m not saying it shouldn’t be looked at but the heavy interest in it seems out of proportion to its prevalence and influence. What’s up with that?
June 1, 2010 at 5:20 PM
In essence a sub is topping from the bottom…nothing in that session happens that they don’t want to. If it is a properly executed scene then, it is enjoyable for both the sub and the Dom/me. The Dom/me respects all of the sub’s wishes. At least if they are a proper Dom/me. There are those out there that aren’t. I’ve met a few. They get off on power and they do not consider the sub’s feelings. They are not true Dom/mes. A true and proper Dom/me’s only mission is to please the sub. It’s very backwards but it’s true.
Faith [edited - Ana, you do not get to use condescending little names to refer to commenters here] the safeword is not always used properly and yes, there have been incidents where the sub doesn’t want to stop for fear of disappointing the Dom/me.
In the BDSM community, the saying is “SAFE, SANE, and CONSENSUAL.” These are the rules that Dom/mes and subs should live by. Not saying that all of them or even half of them do, but it is still there establishing that the scene is safe, sane, and everything in there is consensual before even one event has occurred. It is the rule myself and many of my friends in the community live by.
June 1, 2010 at 6:03 PM
“How do you condemn acts as being wrong (as BDSM opponents do), without that being a condemnation of those that choose to do such things?”
By doing exactly that. I condemn crack smoking, but some of the people I love most on this planet happen to be crack addicts. We all do things that are bad for us. We all do things that we shouldn’t do. The point is not to say you’re a horrible terrible awful person because you do these things. It’s to say, hey, maybe you should really consider not doing these things because you are hurting yourself or you are hurting other people.”
Well said.
It’s the same thing that comes up whenever the dreaded topics of makeup, shaving, and heterosexuality are mentioned in radfem discussions. Someone’s always gotta say, “Well, I wear makeup/shave/have sex with men, and I’m not a bad person!”
Clearly that is not what is being said. It’s easy to fall into the trap (guilt, perhaps? this society is really big on guilt and shame), but that handily allows the person to avoid thinking about WHY they wear makeup or shave or have hetero relationships and how these things could be harmful/uphold the status quo.
If one does shave, or wear makeup, or date men (or get married, or take a man’s last name, or share her bank account, or …), or engage in BDSM, then one is not a Bad Person.
One just needs to think about why one feels these things are necessary or desirable.
Why is shaving considered necessary?
Why do so many women remain in relationships with men who don’t, when you get right down to it, like women?
Why do people mix pain with pleasure?
All questions that do not automatically boil down to “bad person.”
June 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Faith,
Sorry if I was misinformed. I was told by someone in the BDSM scene that when “the sub” retains the power to guide and control the course of the encounter it was called “topping from the bottom.”
June 2, 2010 at 2:53 AM
Faith, a good sub is trained to understand that they have the rights that if ANYTHING scares them or starts to bother them, then they can use what is called the “slow down” word.
How can anyone be “trained” to understand they have rights? It’s a fundamentally self contradictory statement. You can’t have rights that are permitted you by someone else. That’s a concession, not a right.
June 2, 2010 at 7:11 AM
“Faith, sweetie,”
Ana,
Don’t call me sweetie. Ever.
“In essence a sub is topping from the bottom…nothing in that session happens that they don’t want to.”
I’m not going to get into a great debate over how much power a sub actually has. The problem with that – for starters – is that the amount of power a sub actually has is different from encounter to encounter and from relationship to relationship. Topping from the bottom, however, is not what you are referring to. Topping from the bottom is exactly as I explained it. Topping from the bottom is when a bottom intentionally tries to direct the course of an encounter instead of allowing the dom to decide what happens and when. And, yea, it is generally frowned upon. Subs who engage in such behavior are commonly called bratty subs or SAM’s – smart ass masochists.
I’m going to make this very simple. I don’t particularly care what you do. But stop trying to defend it will bullshit justifications. Subs are not the ones truly in control. BDSM is not exactly like all other forms of sex in the area of risk of harm occurring. It also is -not- and never will be feminist for a woman to submit to a man in a BDSM relationship. At this point, that’s all I’m really ultimately concerned about. Getting people to stop with the lame ass justifications that just don’t fucking hold water. The absolute only argument in support of BDSM that holds water is the choice argument. The idea that adults have the right to choose how to live their lives. That’s it. All the other mental gymnastics that BDSM practitioners engage in in an attempt to justify themselves are just rationalizations.
June 2, 2010 at 8:04 AM
joy – I think that certainly all the people who show up to this thread have thought about what kink may or may not imply re: male supremacy and misogyny. I think it’s more a matter of people coming to different conclusions after thinking about it, and being told that one needs to think about something can feel condescending, which I don’t believe is what you’re going for, so am mentioning it as an FYI.
polly – agreed, about training, concessions, rights.
Overall I feel most closely to what Faith talks about, when it comes to my differences with vocal pro-kinksters. I would add that I think “lame ass” as a hold-over slang term is not the best descriptor of negative things, because of the way “lame” has been used to mean physically disabled as well.
I will say again, though, that I don’t think there is a huge difference between non-kink heterosexual sex and kink male dominant/female submissive sex, so in a way I’m on the same side as the happy go lucky kinksters in this thread! I think it is a case of amplified degree, not difference. As such, I’m going to barrel right on with talking freely about the way all forms of male domination are anti-female, whether power and not-pain is involved, or vice versa, or neither, or both. Just because most kink interactions are not like the extremes of kink.com all the time, every time, does not make the existence of a) kink interactions of all kinds irrelevant to feminism or b) the existence of the extremes trivial.
June 2, 2010 at 8:59 AM
“I would add that I think “lame ass” as a hold-over slang term is not the best descriptor of negative things, because of the way “lame” has been used to mean physically disabled as well.”
You’re correct. I apologize for that particular terminology.
June 2, 2010 at 10:46 AM
How can anyone be “trained” to understand they have rights? It’s a fundamentally self contradictory statement. You can’t have rights that are permitted you by someone else.
Right. This is why feminism totally never needs to train/tell women that they have rights to refuse men, to control their own body, etc, etc… /sarcasm Rights are not self-evident when social messages are all about denying the existence of rights. People do need to be trained in what their rights are. I find it shocking that a feminist can actually assert the opposite since the history and work of feminism is so much about consciousness-raising of women.
June 2, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Just because most kink interactions are not like the extremes of kink.com all the time, every time, does not make the existence of a) kink interactions of all kinds irrelevant to feminism or b) the existence of the extremes trivial.
Agreed. OTOH, the amount of time and effort put forth by many feminists in criticising BDSM as opposed to criticising the majority of het sex easily implies that the problems lie with BDSM in particular as opposed to het sex in general. And, when most people are engaging in het sex, surely they’re walking away with the wrong message that they don’t need to examine their sex lives, and, in fact, can feel good about the way they have sex because they’re not like those anti-feminist BDSM people. I don’t see the result of aid and comfort of patriarchal sex norms as a good thing.
(Mind you, I don’t entirely agree with the way criticism of sex practices is conducted by many within feminism but we certainly should be talking about what the point of criticism is if it’s not going to effect change. That is still the point of feminism after all, to effect change.)
June 2, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Well, when it comes right down to the wire, I agree with (and do) criticize ALL het sex.*
There has got to be a way to practice PIV that doesn’t dance that horrid gray line into domination, power play, and violence, but most PIV (and that’s what people are mostly talking about when they talk about het sex; well, PIV and blow jobs) is not practiced in whatever way that is.
*As I am queer, in common parlance bisexual, I typically speak “like a hetero” (ie, about men and women, and m/f ways of relating) in order to, I guess, level the playing field? This may be a poor rhetorical strategy, though.
June 2, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Consciousness-raising now = “training”? In the same way kinksters use the word in reference to ways that dominant partners “train” submissive partners? You’re fucking kidding, right? Nice try for having the vapors though – shocked, shocked I tell you! – that a feminist would possibly object to males training women in their fucking “RIGHTS” TO SUBMIT TO MALES’ SEXUAL DESIRES. Can’t understand why a feminist wouldn’t be on board with that. /no end to my sarcasm.
June 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Joy,
Nice try, Bean, but Faith’s weighing in immediately after yours kinda negated the whole “It’s all in your head” thing you tried to pull.
Hardly, since my point was not, “Only you are offended by the use of the term ‘vanilla.’” My point was that I’ve not often seen it used with the intention you are choosing to ascribe to its usage.
Call it “non-BDSM sex.”
I frequently do (if only to avoid this particular argument about what I obviously must mean by “vanilla”), but I don’t like “non-X” constructions. Partially because they’re awkward; mainly because they explicitly define a group of people by another group.
Now, if non-kinky folk would get together and come up with something other than either “vanilla” or “normal” to describe themselves, that would be groovy. I’d use that. But people don’t tend to name normative sexuality (e.g. heterosexuality) until they’re forced to distinguish it from some “deviancy,” and that hasn’t happened yet here.
It’s like if I, a brunette with glasses, said everyone who was not a brunette with glasses was dull. That privileges me, of course,
No it doesn’t. It’s only your opinion. Having an opinion that you are better than others does not necessarily confer any benefit to you whatsoever. That’s what privilege IS – a special advantage or benefit.
When we argue against BDSM, we aren’t saying “non-BDSM is better.”
I honestly have read all of the comments to Deuce’s posts on BDSM, and I beg to differ. You might want to avoid a broad “we” there.
I think “masochism” is a socially constructed bunch of nonsense, just like “masculinity” and “femininity” are! wow!
Masochism (which I’ll loosely define here as experiencing pleasure from a painful situation) isn’t a social construction, Joy.
If it were, people would not enjoy either exercise or spicy food (which tricks the brain into thinking you’re being burned). Technically, it’s true that the [physical] pleasure of these things is only a result of pain (i.e. it’s the brain releasing endorphins and dopamine in response to pain). But as Lucy said – if you want to call it “pleasure derived from pain,” be consistent.
It’s like telling feminists to stop talking about feminism because some dudes’ (and ladies’, somehow) fee-fees might get stepped upon if they knew.
Actually, as I’ve already said, it’s more like telling people (some of whom are – gasp! – women!) that their experiences are not real. Which is not taking a page from the patriarchal handbook whatsoever, right?
June 2, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Also, speak for yourself on the “…opposed to criticizing the majority of het sex” front. Just because you’re into kink, and lots of straight women who identify as feminists don’t criticize all hetero sex, that doesn’t actually add up to “criticizing the depths of misogyny in BDSM porn is never going to amount to a hill of beans so you should move on to something that I think is more substantial.” Nor does it add up to “no feminists who’ve had an ass full of the levels of violence and contempt shown towards female people in BDSM porn are also critical of hetero sex across the board.” Plenty actually are. Often times, but not always, they’re known as lesbians, as a for instance.
June 2, 2010 at 5:32 PM
sorry about the “sweetie” comment faith…force of habit.
i just think that people are going to watch what they want to watch and do what they want to do.
“To each his own.” i am not referring to me or my partner.
Kink.com is there because it serves people with different sexual interests. Each person has their own way of being pleasured.
I think you have the wrong point of view when it comes to this lifestyle but that is just me. Judging people (which it appears you are doing) because of what they watch and do, isn’t very Christian in my opinion. Not that I have any right to talk. So, I am sorry if I sounded anything other than explanatory. I just expressed my opinion. That’s what this was written for, right?
June 2, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Well, if it isn’t Christian, I’m not into it.
June 2, 2010 at 10:50 PM
joan,
No, I don’t consider them the exact same way. But, yes, I do consider them both to be a form of training the mind to think in ways it is unused to thinking about possessing rights that people are continuously told they don’t have. And, I hardly think BDSM is required to train women to submit to men’s sexual desires. Society seems to do a fantastic job of that already. Which is really my point. BDSM is being tagged as a greater evil than society as a whole in perpetuating patriarchal sex norms. Which is, excuse my bluntness, nonsense. Lad mags, Page 3, advertising, etc, etc all do more to perpetuate norms by being, well, normalising.
And, you’re really missing my point about feminist criticism of het sex. As far as I’m concerned, pointing out misogyny is a good thing. But, if one is trying to say, as ND has, that sex is used as a tool to oppress women, it makes no sense to me to concentrate on the extremes where people do not connect that sex with their own sexual practices. It’s just not effective criticism if one is trying to actually improve things for most women (who are mostly having heterosexual sex). As it is, to re-emphasise my point, the intense criticism that BDSM comes in for versus the lack of criticism for other sex practices under patriarchy (eg, so-called standard PIV) from feminists engaged in criticism of sex acts to uphold the current norms and to not effect change. I’m not acting as the feminist police in telling people what they should be doing, but I do think it’s a valid point to ask just what the point of the criticism is when the stated intent is to bring about the end of patriarchal sex.
(Just to be clear, I’m not into the criticism of het sex because I don’t think I have anything useful to contribute to it as it’s not my experience. And I think the message that men aren’t the only people to have sex with is already out there.)
June 2, 2010 at 10:59 PM
Also, I wouldn’t really know about subs being trained to submit to male sexual desires. My (indirect) knowledge is about subs being trained to submit to female sexual desires. I try not to comment on things outside of my knowledge because it involves making assumptions which can too easily be wrong. (And, again to be clear, unlike some self-declared radical feminists engaged in BDSM, I don’t claim that women-only BDSM is somehow inherently more feminist. Nor is any lesbian sex practice inherently more feminist.)
June 3, 2010 at 12:24 AM
Nine Deuce can I just point out that when I trained you that you have the right to enjoy your holiday, I didn’t mean to spend it in capitalist fast food joints!
You’ve got to get a grip of this ‘rights’ stuff seriously. You can only do what I tell you you have the right to. Understood?
June 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM
Anyone feeling shocked may find the following useful BTW
http://www.boots.com/en/Mackenzies-Smelling-Salts_6669/
June 3, 2010 at 4:37 AM
And don’t you think Joan, that those boring ol’ 70′s hippy consciousness raising groups could have been improved NO END, if the participants had been obliged to call those doing the ‘training’ *master*. Come on woman, where’s your imagination?
What do you mean they ran on non hierarchical lines?
June 3, 2010 at 5:00 AM
Nope, judging people is not very Christian, but Jesus H. (if you’ll excuse the expression), I think we need to call smoke and mirrors and the problems with broad squishy interpretations of “choice” when we see them.
There is an interesting comment over at Salon about the fact that Sarah Palin is appropriating the term “feminist” for her anti-abortion crusade.
ND, If I may post the link: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/06/01/palin_feminism/index.html
The author posits some pretty interesting conundrums for left feminism’s values of choice and inclusiveness, and asks how and where we draw a line. She quotes Kate Harding as saying; “The goals of feminism are meant to benefit conservative women as much as anyone else. But no, conservative women who are actively trying to hinder progress toward those goals should damn well not be welcome in the feminist movement … [S]aying that Sarah Palin’s no feminist is not the same as saying that feminism isn’t interested in improving Sarah Palin’s life.”
This may seem like a bit of a digression, but it is relevant.
There is a difference between “lifestyle choice” and behaviour that clearly denotes an underlying trauma. One can name compulsive and self-destructive behaviours without condemning the person who is engaging.
I do not believe that anyone is born with a desire to get off through giving or receiving pain and humiliation. Saying that there are other factors at play is perfectly legitimate and reducing such a need to the equivalent of choosing between chocolate layer cake a lemon cheesecake derails an important discussion.
BTW – I came up with a term for female Uncle Tom : a Marabel Morgan. She was the Evangelical Christian author of The Total Woman (1974) – a handbook on how to serve your man no matter what a perverted freak he may be, insisting this was the natural order of things. She introduced the Saran Wrap Homecoming to the mainstream and as such was and early populist BDSM-er!
And for the record, I do not for one second think that non-BDSM sex is free of patriarchal power play and I get the point that the negotiation that takes place in BDSM relationships can make for a safer environment than what may happen in a non-negotiated, non-BDSM encounter. Please, I have been date raped, so you don’t have to convince me.
However, any claim that BDSM comes out of some healthy connection to body and spirit and has nothing to do with this fucked-up hierarchy we are entwined in is bullshit.
June 3, 2010 at 5:48 AM
“Judging people (which it appears you are doing) because of what they watch and do, isn’t very Christian in my opinion.”
::snort::
1) We all judge people and their activities all the damn time. Unless you’re an enlightened monk or nun, perhaps, you’re going to judge someone somewhere for doing something.
2) I guess it’s a good thing I’m not christian then, nor do I have any desire to be christian. As far as I’m concerned, the christians are largely responsible for us being in this mess in the first place. The bible is one of the original documents to celebrate and attempt to enforce female submissiveness. I don’t care to have anything to do with that particular bit of literature.
June 3, 2010 at 6:00 AM
“OTOH, the amount of time and effort put forth by many feminists in criticising BDSM as opposed to criticising the majority of het sex easily implies that the problems lie with BDSM in particular as opposed to het sex in general. ”
Lucy,
Feminists discuss the problems in all het. sex all the time. I think one of the reasons that the discussions surrounding BDSM keep coming up is because most feminists of any variety tend to agree with the problems that take place in het. sex in general. But, heaven forbid anyone criticize SM. You criticize SM and suddenly you’re anti-feminist and anti-women and anti-sexual expression and omg you mean nasty feminist you just need to shut up and leave us all the hell alone! Even if you have a history of engaging in BDSM and are criticizing it partially due to your own personal experience…
Yea, that’s about what it boils down to.
June 3, 2010 at 7:00 AM
“And, I hardly think BDSM is required to train women to submit to men’s sexual desires. Society seems to do a fantastic job of that already.”
Which is the exact point of the criticism of BDSM. No one is saying that BDSM is the disease. We’re saying it’s one of the symptoms. Women are taught by society in all sorts of ways to be sexually submissive which leads them towards engaging in BDSM and being aroused by BDSM.
“My (indirect) knowledge is about subs being trained to submit to female sexual desires.”
No one should ever have to be “trained” to submit to any desire. Do you not realize what a ridiculous statement that is? Either you have a desire and you feel confident with expressing it, or you don’t. If someone has to bloody -train- you, that’s an indication that it’s probably not something that you really and truly want to have occur.
June 3, 2010 at 8:09 AM
This may seem like a bit of a digression, but it is relevant.
No, it’s not relevant.
Palin might disagree with a pro-choice stance. She may even consider it anti-feminist. But pro-choice feminism nevertheless works to protect HER choices as well, whatever those happen to be.
She may be offended by other women’s right to choose to have an abortion, but she is not harmed by it.
On the other hand, attacking other women’s sexuality is harmful. And that is what you are doing when you say that kinky sexuality is, “behaviour that clearly denotes an underlying trauma.”
This is wrong. A clear majority of kinky people deny any serious trauma having occurred to them, and research does not find a correlation between BDSM and poor mental health.
Insisting that folks into BDSM are only suffering from some trauma is a clear attempt to dismiss kinky people as too unhealthy to make appropriate choices about our sexuality, and too damaged to evaluate those choices fairly. That, “you obviously must be screwed up or crazy to do THAT,” stigma is actively harmful where it persists.
June 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM
“2) I guess it’s a good thing I’m not christian then, nor do I have any desire to be christian. As far as I’m concerned, the christians are largely responsible for us being in this mess in the first place. The bible is one of the original documents to celebrate and attempt to enforce female submissiveness. I don’t care to have anything to do with that particular bit of literature.”
IMHO, it’s the other way around. People are only going to accept religious views that appeal to them.
Not to mention, people pick and choose the stuff they want to pay attention to from sacred works, and ignore the things that prohibits what they are doing. And then, alot of the popular stuff was tacked on later, and has nothing to do with the original ideas.
June 3, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Faith, I’ve gotta disagree with you on only that one small point, that criticizing het sex is well received.
It seems okay to criticize het sex IN GENERAL, but coming right out and saying “as it stands under patriarchy, there is no way to engage in such and such activity (or even het sex at all) without it being slathered in dominance issues” tends to get people all up in arms.
“But I love giving blow jobs!”
“Isn’t it feminist when I RECEIVE head?”
“I don’t have a -problem- with him coming on my face!”
“Are you telling me I need to be a lesbian?”
“I was born hetero, I can’t just stop having sex! I’d wither and die!”
“Why are you policing my bedroom?!?!”
Same as here, really. Just substitute “blow job” or “PIV” or “doggie-style” or “burlesque” for “BDSM” and let the good times roll.
June 3, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Faith, I was trying to apologize. Sorry if it came out wrong. And how could I know if you were Christian or not…again…sorry.
June 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I find that Christians absolutely always do what Jesus Christ advocated. For instance, Christ was against gay marriage, Christians are against gay marriage.* Christ was against abortion and contraception, Christians are against abortion.** Christ advocated picketing military funerals because god hates fags, Christians picket military funerals because god hates fags***. Etc. You can probably fill in your own examples
* and ** may not apply to all Christians
*** ok mainly the westboro baptist church .
(that’s enough unsubtle and not very funny sarcasm, ed).
June 3, 2010 at 12:23 PM
I posted quite a while saying something that I think sadomasochistic people have said here and in other places–that for me being into this stuff is not a choice, I have been like this since I was a kid.
I’m not trying to say that if desires are not a choice, it’s okay to act on them. Obviously there are desires a person should never act on. Besides, the argument that something should be okay because it’s not a choice is pretty ridiculous; I think people have gotten to the point where we see how arguing “gay people can’t help being gay, so don’t treat them badly” is a really wimpy and inadequate alternative to “there’s no reason to treat gay people badly, so don’t do it.”
However, the fact that being sadomasochistic isn’t a choice for me just makes me really confused when people on this thread keep saying that people with my desires are trying to “break rules” or saying things like “but why would you want to combine sex with power? why would you want to combine sex with pain?”
I mean, I seriously don’t understand how you could take part in these discussions without getting to the point of realizing that people like me didn’t just wake up one day and go, “I’m going to combine sex with pain and it’s going to be ~so edgy~!”
June 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Faith,
I disagree that feminists discuss the problems in all het sex all the time. I’ve found that the discussions tend to slide toward the extremes, which seems to be about an unwillingness to criticise the sex most women are having whether to avoid alienating them or because of a lack of awareness, I’m not sure. I also disagree with the way that sex is discussed by some in which the problem is located within the sex itself and not in the participants. This is a fundamental disagreement, obviously, and not one I think will be resolved any time soon. I’m all for people criticising things using their personal experience because I think that’s the only real valid basis for criticism. If consciousness raising gave us nothing else, it gave us the power of finding the political from the personal. I do, however, have a problem when people assume their experiences and the conclusions they draw from those experiences to be universal even as others are saying their experience differs. If the word “liar” is coming up, then there’s an obvious problem of trying to silence other experiences.
June 3, 2010 at 3:10 PM
And just because I use so many double negatives and otherwise write in convoluted ways to the point where it’s hard to tell what the hell I’m even saying…doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
June 3, 2010 at 3:13 PM
“I try not to comment on things outside of my knowledge because it involves making assumptions which can too easily be wrong.”
Really? Cuz ya seemed to feel pretty comfortable trotting in here to tell us a buncha bullshit.
June 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
joan,
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know my experience was a “buncha bullshit”. But thanks for proving my point regarding calling people liars as a way to silence them. Or, at least attempt to discredit them. I’ve missed the part where I’ve attempted to tell other women what their experiences are.
Faith,
The idea that BDSM is a symptom of a patriarchal society is an interesting idea but hardly a proven fact. For instance, I’ve yet to hear a coherent account of how society’s training women to be sexually submissive results both in women who are submissive in BDSM, women who are dominant in BDSM, and women who are both (switches). Not to mention that this theory has a number of women saying that what you’re saying is not their experience.
As I’ve said before, when women have to be trained in how to resist patriarchal messages, it only makes sense that one would have to be trained to express her desires. I know I’m not the only one who has done things she would rather not have done because of lacking the confidence to express what she wanted. Not to mention the issue of being clear in communicating. And, really, in my experience, the submission thing is about doing what one wants to do anyway. Training, in my indirect experience, seems to be about working out how to express it so others understand what one wants.
Do I think there are unhealthily submissive women out there? Of course. I also think there are women out there in every type of sexual relationship and practice for whom that relationship/practice is unhealthy. It might be helpful to talk about how sexual relationships and practices can enable unhealthy existences but I don’t see how condemning the practices and relationships themselves categorically helps.
June 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM
As a long time reader (lurker), I have read this thread with fascination and this is my point of view (the following info maybe TMI, and extremely long-winded, so I apologise in advance).
1. Pain/pleasure – to a limited extent, this I can understand. I gain pleasure from my partner using her teeth on my nipples – I have asked her to be more forceful than she understood to be acceptable as the slight pain I receive turns me on. In turn, she enjoys me scratching her inner thigh in a manner that leaves marks, as this, also turns her on.
2. Submissiveness – again, I understand in the context of my relationship; on occasion I will ask my partner to refrain from touching me so that I can concentrate on her pleasure, and we have (before we changed headboards!) used restraints to enable this. This has never been a one sided deal.
These events are part of our sex life, but are not a necessity to satisfaction, and I consider our sex life to be pretty normal (I refuse to use the term ‘vanilla’, although some of the best ice-cream I have ever had was vanilla).
We don’t need a ‘safe word’ because the words ‘no’, and ‘stop’, although never used, would be more than sufficient. I cannot envisage a situation when these words are not enough (within my experience).
This is not a judgement on those who practice BDSM, I would not presume to judge anyone.
The title of this thread asks “Please, somebody, come and defend Kink.com. I triple-dog dare you.”
It does not ask for the defence of BDSM, this is done elsewhere. However these are some quotes from the kink.com site;
“Our girls are put to the test when they are bound, gagged, and shocked over and over. It’s all in good fun of course!”
“Hogtied features beautiful helpless women tied up and made to orgasm over and over!
“Slaves are trained for a full week deep in the confines of Kink’s castle, having been trained to take pain, please cock, or anything else their master desired.”
These quotes sum up the point of this site, it is not just about BDSM (in my opinion), it is about subjugating people (especially women) for the viewers sexual pleasure. It distorts (as does all porn) healthy sexual relationships, and portrays BDSM as a freak show (whether you believe it deserves it or not).
Therefore I cannot defend this site, nor the representations of human sexuality it displays.
ebs
June 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM
“I disagree that feminists discuss the problems in all het sex all the time.”
I actually disagree with that statement as well. That was a sloppy sentence. I was typing fast and didn’t proofread (which I usually don’t hence the many typos). I do believe that feminists discuss the problems involved in het. sex in general on quite a regular basis. I take part in these conversations. I’ve been taking part in these conversations for years now. And, oddly enough, many of the people that make similar complaints to yours take part in these conversations as well…
June 3, 2010 at 8:01 PM
Late in the game though it may be I apologize for the use of the word vanilla. I should have better considered my audience, and it was not a thoughtful choice of words. Although I do like Bean’s break down of it.
June 3, 2010 at 9:17 PM
I lurk more than I post because much as I love lingerie I’ve yet to find a good pair of asbestos panties. But I have to weigh in at last. I would love to discuss the intersection of sex with power and why it is so compelling and from where with in our collective psyche it originates. But I don’t think that can happen in a respectful manner, when my experience is denigrated, sometimes subtly (Faith to me: “you are fully welcome to *say* that you were not harmed by your relationship.” emphasis mine) or sometimes blatantly (being compared to a crack head thankyouverymuch).
I, nor as far as I can tell, any of the kinky people who have posted here have expressed any desire to convert any one to “the dark side” (cookies not withstanding) nor have they proclaimed their tastes superior or rebellious or insulted any one for specifically *not* being kinky.
I absolutely agree that harmful relationships are possible with in a BDSM construct. Where I part ways with many of you is that it is absolutely, 100 per cent guaranteed, do not pass go, impossible for a kinky relationship to be fulfilling and healthy and for a kinky person to know their own mind.
Poster after kinky poster has tried to point out that they are happy, and productive people. Links to mental health studies supporting that fact have been provided. The gay and lesbian leather community have been cited as examples of how it’s not just straight men topping straight women. And yet…….none of that matters. We kinksters are deluded at best and abusive monsters at worst.
And now I am going to lose my temper.
I do not in any way suggest that any one accept my sexuality as the platonic ideal to which all who wish to be happy and fulfilled adhere. I, and I’m pretty sure every other kinky person on this board will agree, would like the same courtesy.
At the very least it would be nice not be compared to drug addicts, or have our mental acuity called into question.
I am a feminist and a sub. I sleep with, and have been topped by men and women. I go to the opera, and I’ve fought in Thunder Dome. I am a card carrying member of the NRA and the ACLU. All those facts coexist in one little middle aged, overeducated red head. The world isn’t black and white, and I claim my place in it. I’ve done the homework and self examination and no one gets to tell me what I “really”think or where my feelings “really” come from or what is “really” best or most feminist for me. Not the church, not the government, not my Doms, and not you.
Now I’m going to pour myself a feminist scotch and soda, and bid you all good evening.
June 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Ooh who was that woman, you know the one all the fun fems hate?
Andrea Dworkin?
What did she write again?
June 3, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Also what joy said.
June 3, 2010 at 11:38 PM
But the people who come out with that stuff (like giving blow jobs is empowering, oh yes it is http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/01/is_it_good_to_g ) tend as I say to be of the fun fem variety.
June 3, 2010 at 11:50 PM
And you don’t have to have ‘experienced’ het sex (as in actually done it) to criticise it at all. It’s the norm. It’s assumed you do it whether you do it or not. You’re treated as if you do it. Almost every single novel you read, play you see, TV show you watch is full of the bloody stuff.
In a world where everyone is assumed to be heterosexual any woman is entitled to criticise het sex. And you know what, quite a lot of us do. When we do we get called names and told ‘stop oppressing me’.
Any woman who refuses het sex completely will find plenty of her *sisters* rounding up on her and be subject to lesbophobia of the most overt kind.
But you know what would I know? I’ve never had somebody’s dick stuck up me.
June 3, 2010 at 11:58 PM
But if we can only comment on things that we have personally experienced it’s going to be a bit bloody limiting isn’t it. I’m white, so I can’t possible think racism is wrong. I’m not fertile, so I can’t have an opinion on a woman’s right to abortion. I’ve never murdered anyone or been murdered (Doh!) so I can’t think murder is wrong.
Does anyone see the problem yet?
Nine Deuce said
You know what I don’t want to do? Live in a world where people jerk off to women being subjected to “contraptions used in countries such as China for torture.”
So she is only allowed to hold that opinion if she has PERSONALLY been tortured is she? She might not want, as a female, to walk around thinking that maybe the dude next to her on the bus spent last night wanking to an image of a woman being branded with a red hot poker? She might not feel threatened or uncomfortable if she finds that someone she thought was a friend has a collection of this stuff? The uppity slut! How very dare she! You’ll be telling me women are entitled to hold opinions next.
June 4, 2010 at 1:42 AM
Sneeky bunny says:
[i]The world isn’t black and white, and I claim my place in it. I’ve done the homework and self examination and no one gets to tell me what I “really”think or where my feelings “really” come from or what is “really” best or most feminist for me. Not the church, not the government, not my Doms, and not you.[/i]
Thank you sneeky…I feel that sums up what I have been trying to convey but seem to be sticking my foot in my mouth all which way.
I don’t care if you judge me for what I do. I am a normal human being. I am in college, I go out to coffee, I jog every day, I go to the gym. I have also been collared and topped before.
I apologize if I have offended anyone (especially you Faith) but I can’t stop being who I am and having the opinions that I have.
June 4, 2010 at 1:47 AM
Can I ask anyone who’s having problems with the concept of kink.com being criticised which of these activities should be punished most severely by the criminal justice system?
Paying a woman less than a man?
Having PIV sex when the woman is fully consenting and wants it?
Having PIV sex with a woman when you know they really don’t want to that much and are only ‘consenting’ to placate you?
Raping, torturing and eventually killing someone?
Now imagine there are four separate men who fantasise about doing each of these activities respectively. Which would you want to be alone with least?
June 4, 2010 at 2:06 AM
Oh and the definitive statement on female doms can be found here:
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/01/28/in-which-the-author-bottoms-out/
June 4, 2010 at 3:57 AM
“But if we can only comment on things that we have personally experienced it’s going to be a bit bloody limiting isn’t it. I’m white, so I can’t possible think racism is wrong. I’m not fertile, so I can’t have an opinion on a woman’s right to abortion. I’ve never murdered anyone or been murdered (Doh!) so I can’t think murder is wrong.
Does anyone see the problem yet? ”
I agree with that. On the other hand, though, similar arguments are used about the importance of keeping straight white men out of things that aren’t about straight white men and I agree that that’s important as well.
I’m not sure exactly how to reconcile those two beliefs.
June 4, 2010 at 5:23 AM
“(Faith to me: “you are fully welcome to *say* that you were not harmed by your relationship.” emphasis mine) or sometimes blatantly (being compared to a crack head thankyouverymuch).”
I do think you completely misinterpreted my statement. I’m not going to attempt to explain any further because I suspect it’s pointless. I would ask that you not use the word crack head or behave like it’s such a terrible thing to be compared to a person who uses crack cocaine. Crack addicts are people who deserve to be treated with basic respect and consideration just as you deserve that basic respect and consideration.
June 4, 2010 at 5:43 AM
“Not to mention that this theory has a number of women saying that what you’re saying is not their experience.”
Lucy,
I am a “kinky” woman (I pretty much hate that term just as much as I hate the term vanilla). I am just as tired of having my experiences disbelieved as those other women are.
June 4, 2010 at 6:16 AM
I called your bullshit words “bullshit,” lucy, I didn’t say word one about your “experience.” And in my DREAMS I have the power to silence bullshit like yours.
Indeed, you must *have* missed the part where you tried to tell other women what their experiences are. Perhaps your bullshit was such bullshit that even YOU weren’t paying attention to it in the first place? Feminists train each other in their rights in the same way male dominant sexual partners train female submissive sexual partners in submissiveness, feminists who spend what you judge to be an inordinate amount of time criticizing BDSM are giving non-BDSM hetero sex a pass, etc.
There’s a difference between saying “your point is bullshit” and “you are a liar,” but now that you’ve both spouted nonsense AND denied you’re doing it, repeatedly, I’ll go ahead and apply both. Fingers crossed that this is the time you huff off to complain elsewhere about the oppressive treatment your bullshit behavior has received on this thread.
June 4, 2010 at 6:43 AM
Point taken Isme. But no one says white men can’t have an opinion on racism, say, as in thinking racism is wrong. What IS said is that if a white man (or white woman) says ‘that isn’t racist’ they’re not as qualified to comment as a black person would be. Because – doh – they haven’t experienced racism.
Which is absolutely true. I’m not into BDSM, so I’m in no way qualified to say what it’s like to experience BDSM. But that’s not what this thread is (originally at least, as in the actual post) about.
The post is about Kink.com. And the effect on ALL WOMEN, not just those into BDSM, of its existence. And that’s the difference here. Racism doesn’t affect white people negatively (and please let’s not get into some liberal bleeding heart digression here about how much racism DESTROYS your white liberal life. It doesn’t, you’re lying, shut up).
On the other hand as a female, you’re probably quite qualified to object to the depiction of the rape and torture of women as erotic. Even though some women find it arousing. Even if the performers consent in triplicate, are fully unionised, have super duper benefits, the place is heaving at the gills with health and safety experts etc etc etc. Because the problem is the rape and torture of women happen for real.
And men can object to the depiction of rape and torture as erotic on the same grounds. What they can’t do, is say ‘Well I get off on it, shut up bitch, you’ve never actually been raped and tortured, so what’s your problem?’. Well they can, but it wouldn’t be morally supportable IMNSHO.
I’ve linked to this before, and it’s an interview with Audre Lorde. But it explains the difference fairly brilliantly.
Audre: I don’t see that as the point. I’m not questioning anyone’s right to live. I’m saying we must observe the courses and implications of our lives. If we are talking about feminism then the personal is political and we can subject everything in our lives to scrutiny. We have been nurtured in a sick, abnormal society, and we should be in the process of reclaiming ourselves, not the terms of that society. This is complex. I speak not about condemnation but about recognizing what is happening and questioning what it means. I’m not willing to regiment anyone’s life. If we are to scrutinize our human relationships, we must be willing to scrutinize all aspects of those relationships. The subject of revolution is ourselves, is our lives.
Sadomasochism is an institutionalized celebration of dominant/subordinate relationships. And, it prepares us either to accept subordination or to enforce dominance. Even in play, to affirm that the exertion of power over powerlessness is erotic, is empowering, is to set the emotional and social stage for the continuation of that relationship, politically, socially and economically.
Sadomasochism feeds the belief that domination is inevitable. It can be compared to the phenomenon of worshipping a godhead with two faces, and worshipping only the white part on the full moon and the black part on the dark of the moon, as if totally separate. But you cannot corral any aspect within your life, divorce its implications, whether it’s what you eat for breakfast or how you say goodbye. This is what integrity means.
http://www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=18
June 4, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I’ll go ahead and make an analogy.
I have anorexia. It’s not a feminist act.
I know why I have it — it’s a perfectly logical response to living in a world that has, since the time I was a small child, held me to impossibly high standards in all arenas and limited my choices down to “shitty” or “shittier.”
It’s a way to exercise control in a world where I have been divested of all power. “You wankers can do what you want to me, but I can still starve myself to death if I want!”
It’s not so much about pleasing men, as I don’t really care much about having sex with men and don’t have or want “a Nigel.” But it IS about pleasing men — the strangers on the street who would catcall me about “popping” my “hips” or tell me I had “nice globes”, and who now shut the fuck up because I am androgynously flat (like I’m ‘supposed’ to be).
Anorexia is not radical at all. It’s not edgy or transgressive at all. It’s not feminist at all. It derives from the disease of patriarchy and happened in me because I was vulnerable to patriarchy (due to childhood trauma); however, that does not mean that I’m mentally imbalanced for having it.
I still have it, and no matter how much I understand that it’s neither radical nor feminist, it doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon.
But I’m not going to pretend it’s radical or feminist.
And if ND wrote a piece saying, “You know, people, anorexia is a seriously bad choice,” I wouldn’t say, “Like, OMG, ND, why are you saying I’m a bad person?! Stop telling me what to do! Stop policing my kitchen!”
That’s what we (or I, and what I deduce from some others like polly and ND) mean when we wonder if BDSM practitioners have really thought about what BDSM means, or that in a totally healthy world it would probably not exist.
In a totally healthy world, anorexia would not exist either, and you know what? As attached to my eating disorder as I am in this world (it keeps me safe!), as much as I’ve analyzed it inside out, I would welcome a world where it didn’t exist and I didn’t have it.
I’m a feminist anorexic, but anorexia is not feminist.
Hopefully this analogy made sense.
June 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Oh, and in clarification — I would welcome this imaginary world because it would mean that women were not being sexualized, beauty standards had been abolished, people were not being abused, and thus there would be no reason to have anorexia.
Just in case there was a misunderstanding there.
Again, hopefully this analogy made sense. It’s not really about me, in case that was not clear either; I only use my experience to draw a correlation.
It’s an analogy.
June 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM
I don’t care if you judge me for what I do. I am a normal human being.
I’m not. And I wouldn’t want to be either.
June 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM
To everybody else: I do believe the experiences of people who have engaged in BDSM and are critical of it, and of people who have engaged in BDSM and say the dysfunctional prognosis doesn’t apply to them and that they’re happy.
What I don’t believe is anyone claiming that there is even a smidgen of increased safety or respect, nor any decrease in misogyny levels, amongst people who have kinky sex, compared to everybody else.
Everybody is subject to the conditioning of white male supremacy, and yet somehow I’m supposed to believe that even though non-kinky men are observably, widely male supremacist in subtle and overt ways alike, somehow kinky men magically escape or shake off such conditioning because…? Condescending kinksters say so?
I am just as at-odds with non-kinky people claiming that there can be such a thing as “equal, loving, healthy” sex between male and female people (as contrasted with kink) as I am with fellow perverts excusing, making light of, defending, and otherwise enabling the explicit depictions of male supremacy on submissive female bodies. Whether you want to call those depictions violence or sex or some edgy mixture of the two, so long as anyone is going to claim equality or liberation (!) can be found in any kind of submission to males, I’m going to call bullshit. Orgasms and self-defined happiness? Yes. Sex that exists outside the influence and propagation of male supremacy? No. Not ever.
And so long as white male supremacy negatively effects female people, and it does, all female people have a right to object to any- and everything that supports it. Just as other female people have the right to keep on having whatever sex they feel like having regardless, and as males and females currently have the right in the US to view depictions of extreme misogyny at kink.com.
June 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM
Can I just correct this please (about 6 months after it was printed but better late than never).
Want some legal stuff to look at try Spanner, or the new porn law in the UK. Get done under that, and everyone goes to jail. You are actual the same as a child molester for having consentual sex, and that includes the sub/victim
Learn some law mate. Operation Spanner (R v Brown) was a case in which certain people were convicted for assualt which occurred as part of consensual BDSM. The reason for this is that consent is not generally speaking a defence to a charge of assault which causes ABH with a few exceptions (ear piercing, surgery etc). So NO ONE was convicted for having sex. They were convicted for assault. And they would have been convicted if those same assaults had occurred in a non sexual situation.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3724218.ece
From The Times April 11, 2008
A man who broke his girlfriend’s leg in a bungled attempt to claim £100,000 compensation from their local council was jailed for three years yesterday.
Gordon Thomson was caught because he asked two friends to film him jumping on Elizabeth Hingston’s leg as she lay on the floor with her knee and ankle resting on bricks.
The clip recorded on Thomson’s mobile phone was played to a judge at Plymouth Crown Court before he sentenced the unemployed chef for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The court was told that the couple came up with the moneymaking scam after seeing TV advertisements for “no win, no fee” compensation.
Thomson pleaded guilty but told police that it had been his girlfriend’s idea and he had gone along with it only to “shut her up”. Miss Hingston, 27, who was not charged with any offence, spent six months on crutches.
June 4, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Also, Bean, I’m still getting a preachy feeling off of you.
I’m sorry I used a general “we,” which I did to avoid naming a list of commenters that would get kinda long.
However, I really liked the whole “when you come up with a term for what YOU do, then I’ll use it” thing.
Like, once POC come up with a way to end racism, THEN we’ll end racism!
Now, to head off your argument that “Joy just compared non-BDSMers to POC.” That wasn’t exactly what I was going for. It was a broad analogy to point out the flaw in that logic.
Personally, I call the sex that I have “radical sex”, because it’s -not normative.- As I’ve mentioned, just because it’s not BDSM don’t mean that it’s “normal.”
When you claim that BDSM is totally not like “regular old hetero PIV sex”, you’re going right back to my original point about BDSM people thinking non-BDSM people are boring and standard-flavor basic.
BDSM, as has been pointed out here, is not edgy or transgressive. It’s a reenactment of the everyday hetero power play, just with costumes.
So, no, it’s not a non-normative sex practice. You are not an oppressed group. Thus, non-BDSMers are not white males who have the onus to rename their experiences.
Because not all non-BDSMers have the same kind of sex, for one thing.
You wanna call it “radical sex” (when the participants attempt to actually break down the power dynamics and have an egalitarian experience)? No? I didn’t think you really would, but thanks for trying to make yourself seem super nice and “reasonable” about it.
June 4, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Faith I apreciate the depth of your compassion for your friends with substace abuse problems. They are lucky to have you. However it is disingenuous of you to behave as if, generally speaking, having oneself compared to a drug addict would be interpreted as anything other than insulting. Further more, the “hate the sin but love the sinner” trope carries with it the burden of sounding massively condescending not to mention passive agressive. As I’m sure you are aware, since you’re pretty good with rhetoric. And, by the way, that’s a skill I recognize and admire.
June 4, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Also, polly, thanks for that link.
I liked Jennifer Drew’s comment, and also,
“What *does* bring feminist sexual liberation is being honest and open with your partner …”
which is what I’ve been trying, and not very well (I fear it has been coming off as not-my-Nigeling, which I can explain in a moment), to communicate re, radical sex.
As Jennifer Drew also pointed out on that thread, no sex can be truly radical in this society because of how all people are trained to see sex and who does what sex.
Even lesbians can have a really odd “I’m the man, which is to say dominant, here and you’re the woman, the submissive” take on sex, so in a way, the hetero discourse on sex affects everyone.
That’s what I meant — even when one engages in what is technically a radical act (“okay, now we are going to have a mutually communicative, mutually enjoyable, totally enthusiastically consentual egalitarian time”), there are limitations due to prior societal conditioning, etc etc.
In other words, no sex act is above reproach.
That’s another reason why claiming that BDSM practitioners are somehow oppressed and non-BDSMers are normal etc is false. There is no way to fuck in this culture without it being a sick game of dominance and control.
The fact that some people do not wish to magnify and concentrate this power and control does not make them boring, any more than the fact that some people don’t like to “deep-throat” or submit to anal sex.
It also doesn’t mean that those people who do not BDSM or deep-throat or “take it up the arse” are prudes, or normal, or not going to receive some serious shit for what they do (or don’t do). Women get raped and shunned and shamed (as lizor pointed out) for what they don’t do as much as for what they do.
The only way to solve any of this is to take the whole damn system (of patriarchy, and capitalism, etc) down. Not to replicate it.
And the whole thing about “training” people is so disturbing that I can’t even touch upon it without having a mild PTSD flashback. “Training.” Like animals are trained.
All social conditioning is training. We know this, right? Gender roles are trained into everyone. S and M roles are trained into people who practice them. Thus, they are all socialized conditions of falsehood. If you must be trained to do something, it is not “normal” or “natural” or any other excuse. It’s training.
Mind, people are also trained to, say, use the toilet instead of just shitting where they please. So not all training is “bad.” Some training, however, like gender role training or deep-throat training or anal sex training, can cause serious problems. Even if it doesn’t cause problems -for one particular person.-
June 4, 2010 at 12:22 PM
@polly (the other one, not the one making apparently-rhetorical comments about people hating Dworkin)
Obviously, out of those four scenarios, I’d least want to be in the room with the last one. Theoretically.
Although if the man who fantasized about the last one recognised it only as a fantasy, while the one who fantasized about the first believed it whole-heartedly, my answer there might change.
What that has to do with Kink.com escapes me. In fact, I originally read this comment as being in support of Kink.com, since it seems to be saying, “Why the hell are you so focused on consensual sex when women are being actually raped, tortured and murdered?”
And then I realised that you seemed to be saying something else. Er. WHAT, though? That Kink.com rapes and murders women? Huh?
So, uh, your point (whatever it was) is a little incoherent.
Re: that link.
If you were actually willing to read kinky blogs as well as radfem ones (which I doubt you do), you’d be aware that women (and some men) into BDSM have made those same criticisms of sexist tropes in kink many, many, many times.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I have never claimed that the BDSM community as a whole is free of sexism, or that BDSM practices are inherently feminist. That would be stupid.
June 4, 2010 at 12:25 PM
“Training.” Like animals are trained
Presactly. The aim of training is to elicit a predictable pre programmed reaction. So your dog does what you want it to, you feed it a treat. It does what you don’t want it to, you do something it finds unpleasant. In the end it associates the desired action with pleasure, the undesired action with pain.
June 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM
@joy
However, I really liked the whole “when you come up with a term for what YOU do, then I’ll use it” thing.
Like, once POC come up with a way to end racism, THEN we’ll end racism!
No, joy, that comment was about the fact that I prefer to call people by names they have given themselves. But the majority group rarely names itself unless it has to. And kinky people are NOT the majority.
I have also never claimed that kinky people are oppressed.
And yes, kinky sex is non-normative. If it were anything else, you’d be expected to be tied up and hit with a single-tail whip. No matter what anyone on this thread says, I cannot say I was raised with that pressure or see it existing.
You wanna call it “radical sex” (when the participants attempt to actually break down the power dynamics and have an egalitarian experience)?
If that’s what you call the sex you’re describing, fine. I don’t think most people think about the sex they have that deeply though, so that still doesn’t answer what non-kinky sex-in-general should be called.
Because not all non-BDSMers have the same kind of sex, for one thing.
No kidding.
Broadly grouping together sex practices that don’t overtly mix in either power exchanges or pain doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, though.
Because hey, there’s actually about a million variations to “kinky sex,” but you don’t seem to have a problem grouping all of us together – including the ones who play with pain, but not power, or the ones who play with power, but not pain, etc.
No, we’re all exactly alike.
June 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM
“However it is disingenuous of you to behave as if, generally speaking, having oneself compared to a drug addict would be interpreted as anything other than insulting.”
I really don’t believe that it is insulting. It is only insulting if you believe that the state of drug addiction is something to be ashamed of or something that makes you inferior. It is not. Regardless, I actually do believe that in many ways the inclination towards BDSM is similar to – if not exactly the same in some cases – as drug addiction. For starters, there are many people who will tell you that part of the reason they engage it is because it makes them feel high. I happen to be one of those individuals who does experience a high from certain SM activities. Before, during, and after. Reliving that high over and over again is a large part of the draw, so to speak. We know for a fact that pain releases stimulants/chemicals in the brain, just as using drugs will. So while I agree that most people will find it insulting to be likened to a drug addict, I don’t believe that there is any logical reason to feel insulted unless the person is intending to insult you by likening you to a drug addict. If you feel insulted when the person isn’t actually intending to insult you then the logical assumption is that you view drug addicts as inferior to yourself. Given that you referred to addicts as “crack heads”, it isn’t a stretch of the imagination to believe that you look down upon people who happen to use illegal substances to get off instead using whips and ropes.
June 4, 2010 at 1:26 PM
“so that still doesn’t answer what non-kinky sex-in-general should be called.”
I’m a big fan of calling it sex myself. That’s what I called it for years before I ever encountered BDSM. That’s what I intend to keep calling it.
June 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Okay. Just, what Audre Lorde said.
That makes things a thousand times easier.
However, I will say, Bean, that I was once “trained” to be in an S&M relationship because some fellow thought I’d be “good at it” (ie, that I am “naturally submissive”).
It was extremely frightening and really sucked. But wherever one goes to seek help from that situation, one meets with “You are just being a bad sub,” “you are being bratty,” “submit to your Master’s training, don’t you trust your Master?”
And we were just having “regular” sex, ie, no whips or chains or butt-plugs or hot wax — just “regular” sex where I submitted completely to another human being’s desires and ignored my own. Because my own were supposed to be simply an extension of his. My own wishes were meant to “naturally” be to serve another person in every aspect of life, but especially in bed.
So it’s true, everyone does it differently. But the thought process seems largely the same.
So yeah, I lump all y’all together, at least rhetorically. Just like I lump all men together rhetorically, with the word “men,” when we are talking about shitty men. However, that doesn’t mean I do so in my mind, or I think you are all one massive faceless horde of people in latex masks.
Also, re the commenter who wrote about, “training [someone] to submit to female desires” — what? Pardon? We’re all supposed to be “naturally submissive”? Really? Way to lump all WOMEN into one faceless … vagina.
June 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM
But if we can only comment on things that we have personally experienced it’s going to be a bit bloody limiting isn’t it. I’m white, so I can’t possible think racism is wrong. I’m not fertile, so I can’t have an opinion on a woman’s right to abortion. I’ve never murdered anyone or been murdered (Doh!) so I can’t think murder is wrong.
Does anyone see the problem yet?
I though feminists had already realised that it it’s important to centre people who actually experience racism and the white people should STFU about what they think and instead follow their lead. If there is a third wave of feminism that would be what it has been in large part about. The same about fertile women and even women who have het sex as applies to women who experience racism. But perhaps I think that’s standard for feminism because I’m a srs fem and not a funny fem?
Anyway, as polly pointed out:
But no one says white men can’t have an opinion on racism, say, as in thinking racism is wrong. What IS said is that if a white man (or white woman) says ‘that isn’t racist’ they’re not as qualified to comment as a black person would be. Because – doh – they haven’t experienced racism.
You can have your opinion on anything. And I can say your opinion is wrong when it involves invalidating my experiences.
But you know what would I know? I’ve never had somebody’s dick stuck up me.
I only quote this because you’re making an assumption about what het sex is. Some of the women I’ve been involved with who had also been involved with men made fun of lesbians who frame het sex in such a way. FWIW.
polly,
The so-called “definitive statement on female doms” can’t be because it’s not a statement by all female doms. Not to mention, as usual, it’s so heterocentric I laughed at it. Not that I think heterocentrism is funny but the other choice is to get very angry about how non-straight women are erased.
Faith,
I am a “kinky” woman (I pretty much hate that term just as much as I hate the term vanilla). I am just as tired of having my experiences disbelieved as those other women are.
I didn’t disbelieve your experience, I just don’t think it’s cool to universalise from your experience to other people, especially when those people say that’s not what their experience is. If you’d just said “This is my experience” instead of generalising, I wouldn’t have said anything. Who am I to tell you your history?
joan,
Fingers crossed that this is the time you huff off to complain elsewhere about the oppressive treatment your bullshit behavior has received on this thread.
Dream on. You’re not going to successfully bully me. Of course, if you want to huff off to complain elsewhere about the oppressive way I’m treating your bullshit behaviour, I certainly won’t stop you.
Anyway, I was being provocative, but I think unless you’re now claiming you’re every feminist whose been in a consciousness-raising group I can point out apparent similarities. And, it’s not denying a woman’s experience to question the effectiveness of criticising BDSM in advancing feminism. That’s just ridiculous. If feminists can’t discuss how effective or not efforts are being for advancing feminism then why do we discuss and argue at all? If you must see it as an experience thing, then my experience is that so much criticism on BDSM instead of the majority of sexual practices is not significantly advancing feminism and is instead giving aid and comfort to patriarchy. Don’t invalidate my experience. *eyeroll*
joy,
So, no, it’s not a non-normative sex practice. You are not an oppressed group. Thus, non-BDSMers are not white males who have the onus to rename their experiences.
Ehr, what? So explain to me why people are arrested for consensual BDSM and are threatened with having their children taken from them for participating? At least in the US. This is what happens to the privileged? Whaaa? We must have different understandings of what privilege is.
June 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM
joy,
Also, re the commenter who wrote about, “training [someone] to submit to female desires” — what? Pardon? We’re all supposed to be “naturally submissive”? Really? Way to lump all WOMEN into one faceless … vagina.
You might want to re-read what I said. I was talking about people (not just women) submitting to dominant women. That would include women on both sides of that situation. No monolith there. And, what’s with the misogynistic reduction of women to a body part? I understand when anti-feminists do it, but why do feminists do it?
June 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM
“Of course, if you want to huff off to complain elsewhere about the oppressive way I’m treating your bullshit behaviour, I certainly won’t stop you.”
Because it wasn’t sad enough when you were repeating your own self relentlessly, now you’ve taken to repeating what other people have said as if it’s your own sentiment. I might weep openly about such a state of affairs, but I wouldn’t huff off over it or feel oppressed.
Also, your affectation of a British accent online is unseemly. The English language of your culture spells it “behavior,” which you well know.
June 4, 2010 at 2:40 PM
@joy
However, that doesn’t mean I do so in my mind, or I think you are all one massive faceless horde of people in latex masks.
Well, I’ve failed to see that awareness in this thread. I often (though not always) see it from other kinky people, but not here. No, the discussion here is reductive and entirely focused on the idea of “men hit women for fun!”
So I can’t be torn up over the idea that lumping all non-kinky sex together is insultingly reductive.
Also, I am having nothing to do with the “training,” discussion so far.
@Faith
I’m a big fan of calling it sex myself.
Well, I’d be a fan of calling any sex I’d like to have just “sex” myself.
Unfortunately, the assumptions about what sort of sex I’d be having if I called it that (hetero PIV sex) erase me as both queer and kinky. So I can’t.
Being able to call your sex “sex” and not be misunderstood is a privilege.
June 4, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Oh Faith you are *good*! Nice job of turning it back on me *and* dellivering a beautiful non-apology at the same time! I have always had a soft spot for the “I’m sorry you feel that way” weasle move.
If indeed you did not intend to insult me, then I accept your apology, and forgive the little zinger wrapped inside it as well. And again, nicely played.
June 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM
When I made the vagina statement, I was referring to the way non-feminists think. That women are all one faceless vagina.
Again, why does sex have to involve anyone submitting to anyone or anything? That is just regurgitation of the same old power roles, whether you do it with costumes or not.
And why are power roles good to bring up and replicate?
Those questions have still not been answered, and I’m still goin’ with the word of the Lorde (in case anyone misses the humor, I’m making a flippant statement to say that Audre Lorde states her case in a way that is succinct and there is not much if anything I could add to that.
June 4, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Also, the “fantasy” thing.
I’m glad you think there’s a hard line between fantasy and reality, Bean, but I’m not so sure.
I used to fantasize (not sexually) about shooting Dick Cheney in the face while wearing a hunting suit. I also used to fantasize about chucking a Molotov cocktail at one of GW’s motorcades. That doesn’t mean I would have actually done either of those things …
but it does mean I WANTED to. And I probably would have if I wouldn’t have been caught or punished.
What does that say about people who fantasize about rape and murder?
“Oh, but it’s only PRETEND!” doesn’t really cut it.
Here we go, and possible trigger warning for abused women.
Imagine, Bean and friends, that you are in a subway car with a bunch of women. Some of these women may fantasize about holding your hand and kissing you. Some are fantasizing about ripping your penis off with their teeth, slapping you with it, then forcing a gun down your throat.
Do you feel comfortable now?
Even if the women in the latter category would smile and say, “It’s only pretend”?
I didn’t think so. But other than what that illustrates that you know but are pretending not to know (that people’s fantasies, even “pretend”, are an expression of what they REALLY WANT TO DO if they wouldn’t get caught or punished) –
that is what women go through every day. I went through it today, on the subway, trying to pick out which men were fantasizing about raping me and hurting me until I cried (or didn’t cry! some doms insist that “their” subs never cry!) — and it actually did bring me to tears.
Because I know the difference between “real” and “pretend”, and simply “having a ‘safe’ word” doesn’t make anything any less real.
June 4, 2010 at 4:16 PM
“Being able to call your sex “sex” and not be misunderstood is a privilege.”
I never said anything about not being misunderstood. When I have sex with women, I call that sex too. But certainly there are people who will not understand what I mean when I say sex when I’m referring to having sex with women.
Sneeky bunny,
“Oh Faith you are *good*!”
Well thank you. I think. I’m not sure what I’m good at, but I appreciate your compliment.
“Nice job of turning it back on me *and* dellivering a beautiful non-apology at the same time! ”
I see no reason to apologize if I have not been insulting. You manufactured the insult yourself in your own head.
“If indeed you did not intend to insult me, then I accept your apology, and forgive the little zinger wrapped inside it as well. And again, nicely played.”
And again, I did not apologize but simply explained my position. But if you’d like to forgive me for something I didn’t do, ok. I’m also not trying to “play” you or anyone else. I am speaking from my experiences and from my heart. That is what I strive to do. I don’t always succeed, but I do make that effort.
June 4, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Joan,
Get back to me when you’ve got more than personal insults. Like engaging with what I’ve said rather than how I said it. Though, thanks for the laugh about my spelling being “unseemly”. I’m sure you’d find the way I have a US accent combined with a Scouser speaking cadence to be really unseemly! (Not to mention, my use of British words, as below.)
joy,
When I made the vagina statement, I was referring to the way non-feminists think. That women are all one faceless vagina.
So why do you feel the need to use the same wording they do to do so? Intent doesn’t make the wording any less misogynistic in the context in which you used it. It just seems wrong to me to be misogynistic if one is a feminist. (Plus, I can’t help but thinking if we’re going to refer to faceless body parts it would make sense to refer to the vulva which can at least be easily seen.)
Again, why does sex have to involve anyone submitting to anyone or anything? That is just regurgitation of the same old power roles, whether you do it with costumes or not.
And why are power roles good to bring up and replicate?
I’m really curious why you think anyone needs to justify their sexual practices to you. Why do you need to know? What does it change if someone attempts to justify themselves, and you find their explanation wanting? Anyway, my flip answer to your questions is, “Because it’s enjoyable to them?”. Which would be the same reason I like to drink wine or cider with my tea. I don’t need to do it, but I prefer to do it. And, yet, even as alcohol is a preferred tool in enabling the rape of women, no one is asking me why I’m drinking it with my tea.
June 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Well, Lucy, because drinking alcohol doesn’t make a rapist rape. Nor does BDSM, but back to that after –
Whoa, you mean the vagina’s inside and the vulva’s out? I NEVER FUCKING KNEW THAT OR ANYTHING. You are blowing my mind with these things I’ve never thought of or considered. Wow.
Anyway, drinking alcohol does not replicate the patriarchy. BDSM does. It’s a microcosm of the partriarchy.
Here we go. I don’t care if anyone “justifies” their sex practices TO ME. And “because I like it!” wouldn’t cut it anyway.
Feminists would ask for the same kind of explanation from an anorexic, and I’ve displayed how I’d respond to that (not simply by whining “because I like it!” even though I do; hunger can create a sense of euphoria in addition to the rush of knowing one can control one’s own basic needs to the point of erasure).
There has been no similar introspection (ie, “I know that it is patriarchal forces that drive me to do this, but I do it anyway to comfort myself”) here. The closest has been “it’s not because I decided it was trendy.”
The same thing comes up on threads about blow jobs, or doggie style, or PIV.
“But I liiike it!”
“Why do I have to explain myself to you (mean feminist)?!”
Don’t explain. It doesn’t really matter. Assholes are still going to be raping women at the end of the day. The fact that some people (not merely BDSMers, either! so please don’t say that I’m saying BDSMers somehow cause rape!) choose to replicate rape over. and over. and over. again in their bedroom and call it trendy or empowering or “a gift” isn’t going to make more or less rape for those who don’t.
June 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM
@joy
Thank you. I knew the day would come when a woman in one of these threads would evoke an image of violence aimed at my non-existent genitalia. Won’t lie, it was funny. The second woman in your scenario there would be DAMN disappointed if she got my pants off!
I’m an androgynous FtM, for the record.
And what you’re describing there kinda suffers in comparison to some of the actual fantasies I’ve heard sadistic women describe re: what they like to imagine themselves doing to a penis. If you thought fantasies of violent mutilations were limited to men…you’d be wrong.
I’m quite comfortable with that, because I also believe most people are sane and stable enough to keep those things to fantasies. I hope any that aren’t end up in prison, and that people continue to be educated about “red flags” and learn ways to keep themselves safe from the criminally violent.
And you don’t need to describe the experience of fearing sexual assault or rape to me. I still live with that, and have empathy for that fear. But men with violent fantasies who choose to express them in consensual ways are far from the first men I’d fear.
The hard line exists when you choose to put it there.
that people’s fantasies, even “pretend”, are an expression of what they REALLY WANT TO DO if they wouldn’t get caught or punished
No. I’ve fantasized sexually about things that I know for a fact that I really, truly would not ever want to do in reality. I believe other people who say the same thing.
If you have a hard time believing that because you’ve never fantasized about something you’d never actually want to do, fine. But that doesn’t mean we’re all lying.
Because I know the difference between “real” and “pretend”, and simply “having a ‘safe’ word” doesn’t make anything any less real.
What’s “less real” exactly? Consent? Can’t agree there.
@Faith
Okay, that’s your choice. I can agree with the principle, but I personally prefer not to be erased.
June 4, 2010 at 6:46 PM
@joy
There has been no similar introspection (ie, “I know that it is patriarchal forces that drive me to do this, but I do it anyway to comfort myself”) here.
I know elements of my sexuality have been shaped by hetero-patriarchy, and I can trace them pretty directly. I’m not about to say they don’t exist, although Ido disagree that they can’t be subverted in any other way besides pretending they aren’t there.
But I disagree that my entire sexuality is “driven,” by patriarchy. So if I don’t say that, it’s not because I haven’t considered the idea.
It’s because I don’t agree.
June 4, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Let us not forget, everyone, when we discuss the issue of consent, that the women on Kink.com are paid to give their consent. Consent in the context of Kink.com does not exist, as it is a pay-for-rape scenario. OK, I’ll go back to being a lazy non-blogger for now (until tomorrow, when I promise to post).
June 4, 2010 at 7:00 PM
Deuce, what? That sort of statement makes no sense in the context of any other sort of work; why should it make sense in this one? Unless something criminal occurred, they consented to the videos they shot.
June 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM
In most other lines of work, we aren’t required to allow people to cattle prod us or insert foreign objects into our anuses. I mean, I’ve worked at some really terrible mall stores, but that has yet to occur.
June 4, 2010 at 7:08 PM
ND, I’m at a loss as to how to respond to that one, since it seems to depend on shock value.
If the women in the Kink.com videos were not aware of what would occur in the videos, and didn’t agree to it beforehand, then no, they didn’t consent. Otherwise, they did. It’s quite simple. There’s a fair number of people who like having all sort of things stuck up their butts, so I don’t find the idea that they consented all that strange.
June 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM
I’m not the one who produces porn in which just those sorts of things happen, so I don’t want to hear about my doing anything for “shock value.” Last time I checked, actual consent doesn’t require monetary compensation.
June 4, 2010 at 8:17 PM
Then why pay anyone for anything? Our entire economic system depends on our being paid when we consent.
June 4, 2010 at 9:32 PM
Sorry I assumed you were a dude, Bean. Mostly it’s only dudes who claim that getting paid to be raped (ie, signing a waiver to participate in porn) is the same as consent.
And no, I didn’t say -I- wanted to rip -your- (apparently nonexistant) penis off. I’m saying, would you feel comfortable in a world where you knew that at least one person per subway car, public bus, or carpool was thinking such things?
Apparently they are, but about women. And “consent” really doesn’t enter into it.
The whole fantasy thing is still disturbing to me. Anyone else?
WHY would someone fantasize about raping and torturing someone if it’s not really what they would want to do?!
“I’d really hate this, but I’m going to sit here and lovingly think about it for hours.”
It’s like the defense that pornsick dudes give — “Darling, I’d never cheat on you in real life!”
Dude, then why are you looking at porn?
June 4, 2010 at 10:38 PM
The point Nine Deuce is making is that ‘consent’ is mitigated by the presence of pay. I ‘consent’ to go to work, but I wouldn’t if they stopped paying me. So the consent is not given simply because they want to do that act, but given for pay. We can argue all decade about whether that means it’s rape or not, but it isn’t something they’re doing JUST because they enjoy it. They may also enjoy it as well of course, I sometimes have fun at work. The problem is the assumption that you either consent or you don’t, and that all ‘consent’ is a wholehearted expression of a person’s wishes. There are many days when I’d rather stay at home, but I go to work because if I didn’t, I’d be sacked and have no money.
If the owners of kink.com were operating in the UK they’d be committing an illegal act. Not just because they’re producing illegal porn, but because it’s not legal to assault your employees in they way they do, even if they do consent.
I don’t know what you think of health and safety law at work generally Bean, but I think it’s a good thing for people’s safety to be protected in the workplace. Because otherwise employers could exploit people’s need for money to force them to work in unsafe conditions.
Which I believe is the point ND’s making.
June 4, 2010 at 10:54 PM
There is only one Polly commenting on this thread AFAIK.but I’m sometimes logged into a different wordpress ID, hence the different avatar. The point of my hypothetical ‘which person would you rather be with’ was that the degree of something IS relevant when objecting to it. Thus you can say ‘Nine Deuce why are you objecting to kink.com when Sex and the City 2 is a terrible film?”
And the answer is firstly, I would suspect that Nine Deuce, is not (unlike God) omnipresent with unlimited time. Sometimes one has to prioritise. But the answer is also. Kink.com is horrifying. Not to everyone, but to a significant proportion of people it is. The other reason of course is that most everyone is writing about SATC 2.
Re fantasy, what Joy said. People may fantasise about something they wouldn’t do IRL. But they don’t usually fantasise about stuff they’d never want to do, all things being equal. I don’t really find it very credible that Kink.com is only watched by people who’d never want to perform the acts shown on a non consenting female.
June 4, 2010 at 10:58 PM
And what you’re describing there kinda suffers in comparison to some of the actual fantasies I’ve heard sadistic women describe re: what they like to imagine themselves doing to a penis. If you thought fantasies of violent mutilations were limited to men…you’d be wrong
Well I didn’t think that actually, but it’s an interesting point. Interesting because how often do women ACT OUT their violent fantasies compared to how often men act out violence on women.
And there’s the rub.
June 4, 2010 at 11:06 PM
I forgot to add that if Kink.com were in England, they’d almost certainly be in breach of Health and Safety legislation.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=health+and+safety+at+work+etc+act+&Year=1974&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1316700&ActiveTextDocId=1316707&filesize=9145
June 4, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Well, I’d be a fan of calling any sex I’d like to have just “sex” myself.
Unfortunately, the assumptions about what sort of sex I’d be having if I called it that (hetero PIV sex) erase me as both queer and kinky. So I can’t
You have a good point about what ‘sex’ is assumed to be Bean. However I’d fundamentally disagree about the solution. Every lesbian and gay man I know calls what they do sexually ‘sex’. Just sex. Not lesbian sex, not gay sex, sex. It is usually heterosexual people or the media who refer to ‘gay sex’ and ‘lesbian sex’.
Following on from that, I’ve just re read that Audre Lorde quote and she refers to a ‘sick and abnormal society’, and I think that the use of the word abnormal in that context – as pejorative – is inappropriate. Because all ‘abnormal’ means is ‘differing from the norm’. And as I’ve already said, I can’t really see what the problem is with differing from the norm.
June 5, 2010 at 12:34 AM
I am a dude, joy. You only got my anatomy wrong, and I find it funny when people make assumptions about my body based on my gender. (Which, incidentally, I’m fairly certain I haven’t stated on this thread…perhaps I misremember, though.) But if this is going in the direction of a transphobic argument, then I’d rather drop the issue of my gender entirely since it’s not relevant to the discussion anyway.
And no, I didn’t say -I- wanted to rip -your- (apparently nonexistant) penis off.
Yes, the theoretical women in your example aren’t you. Didn’t suggest otherwise.
I’m saying, would you feel comfortable in a world where you knew that at least one person per subway car, public bus, or carpool was thinking such things?
And I’m saying I am, because I trust that most of those people aren’t criminally violent.
WHY would someone fantasize about raping and torturing someone if it’s not really what they would want to do?!
Well. I can fantasize about eating nothing but candy all day. That can seem like a nice idea in my head. But in reality? Well, it would just make me seriously ill.
In my fantasy, I can leave that part out. Knowing that I can’t escape that part in reality is a pretty strong reason not to actually spend an entire day eating candy, though. The parts of reality that I cannot sanitize actually make the reality of the idea really unattractive.
June 5, 2010 at 12:45 AM
And before anybody pops up to say ‘well all work is exploitative’ then, I don’t disagree with you. If anyone goes to work solely or mainly for the money, their need for money is being exploited. Don’t blame me, I didn’t invent capitalism. But as also explained, it’s a question of degree. Yeah, I wouldn’t go to work if I wasn’t paid, I’d give up work if I had an equal amount of money from not working. However I do choose my job to a degree that I could maybe take a lower paid part time job and have more leisure time, but then I’d have less money. Which I could probably survive on, but I like nice things. Y’know?
Consent in the sense that you agree to something doesn’t mean there isn’t a degree of coercion present – and that coercion can be financial. A woman consented to have her boyfriend break her legs to commit an insurance scam. But the law in the crazy ol U of K says her consent isn’t a defence, he still committed a crime (which was GBH, not the attempted fraud).
Fascists that we are, us crazy Britishers also believe that workplaces should be as safe as they can be. Yeah they’re still exploitative in some senses, but legally – if you have an accident at work that could practicably have been prevented, your employer is liable. If your employer intentionally injures you they are liable. They have a duty of care, in other words.
June 5, 2010 at 1:12 AM
about the fantasy rape thing…i personally am not into that…some women who have been raped in the past (as sick as this sounds) use it as a form of therapy. In the fantasy, they know that they are in control the whole time and that once everything is over, it will end. It is the psychological part. Like getting back onto a bike when you have fallen off. Not to say that getting raped is like riding a bike, but it is facing your fears and knowing that you are in control the whole time and all it takes is one word for everything to stop.
Even people at kink.com have to have a safeword. Yes, I am sure they sign some sort of waiver but at the same time, they are consenting adults and then most likely know what is going to happen to them. I would guess that a lot of it is scripted or something to that extent.
June 5, 2010 at 2:36 AM
Joy, I am with Bean in that many, if not all, of my sexual fantasies involve scenarios which I haven’t the tiniest interest in seeing manifested in real life. As a matter of fact some of them are physically impossible, and I’m pretty sure all of them would curl most people’s hair.
I also must join Lucy in her position that we don’t owe you an explanation or, more to the point, a justification for how we are wired. Nor am I interested in indulging in self flagellation over the hypothetical non feminist origins of my kinks. I have done the self examination and I have come to a conclusion that differs from yours. And no, more examination isn’t going to change that.
That being said, I have never held the point of view that what I do in bed (BDSM or non BDSM) is a feminist act. I don’t think it has to be, but that’s just me. I fully understand that a valid argument can be made to the contrary.
June 5, 2010 at 2:39 AM
If you say so Faith, but I am disinclined to believe that you are as obtuse as you pretend.
June 5, 2010 at 8:06 AM
Bean – Why would you assume I think our economic system is a good thing?
June 5, 2010 at 8:37 AM
Bean: the problem with your eating candy example is that you are not saying you don’t want to do it, you are saying that there will be a unpleasant consequence if you do.
Which is a completely different things. I’m on a diet. I’m currently refraining from eating all kinds of lovely things, but I fantasise about eating them a lot. And if I could eat them without what I perceive as a negative consequence, (putting on weight) I would. But I DO want to eat them.
June 5, 2010 at 9:09 AM
I’m interested that people at Kink.com have to have a “safeword” though. Because in the (extremely unlikely) event I was in some way physically detained at my workplace, I’d just have to say ‘let me out of here’. And they’d have to let me go, otherwise they’d be breaking the law. And yes if being physically detained was in some way an essential part of my job, they could then say I wasn’t doing my job and sack me, but they still couldn’t lawfully detain me against my will.
And again – you can’t legally waive these rights in any way whatsoever. Even if you’ve signed a contract you can’t be legally made to actually do your job. (though you can be sued for consequential damages from you not doing your job). I mean if you were say, on an oil rig in the middle of the North sea, they might say you have to wait for the next helicopter, rather than them flying one in specially, but that’s about it.
Brief recourse to google informs me that US law also recognises the principle that a court cannot order an employee to work for an employer, because the thirteenth amendment to the constitution prevents slavery.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+performance
So again. Why would you need a safeword it it’s just an ordinary job? Why can’t you just say ‘stop this and let me go?’.
June 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM
about the fantasy rape thing…i personally am not into that…some women who have been raped in the past (as sick as this sounds) use it as a form of therapy. In the fantasy, they know that they are in control the whole time and that once everything is over, it will end. It is the psychological part. Like getting back onto a bike when you have fallen off. Not to say that getting raped is like riding a bike, but it is facing your fears and knowing that you are in control the whole time and all it takes is one word for everything to stop
I’ve heard this argument before, (many, many times before in fact but never from anyone who didn’t practice/advocate BDSM) and I fail to see the logic. The exact reasoning I’ve heard most often is ‘you have the right to say no’. Well you had the right to say no when you actually were raped/assaulted. It’s just that your ‘no’ was ignored.
I’m not saying anyone doesn’t have the right to do anything they want to as a coping strategy. I’m just saying I can’t actually see how it works. It might well WORK for some people, but being raped is not, as you say, like riding a bike. A more apt analogy for the situation you describe would be riding a bike, being hit by a car, and then asking someone to play hit you with a car.
And I don’t see how that would help you to not fear either riding a bike, or being hit with a car. If you’re frightened of riding a bike, it can make sense for some people to get back on a bike and see that they’re not hit by a car. If rape has made you frightened of sex, it can make sense for some people to have sex and see that they’re not raped. HOW that process would be assisted by a rape fantasy however isn’t at all clear.
In the fantasy, they know that they are in control the whole time and that once everything is over, it will end.
But if you find what is happening unpleasant, and frightening, isn’t it better for it not to start in the first place? And it also doesn’t explain why you would find that fantasy erotic.
And again, I’m not saying it doesn’t work for some people. I am saying I don’t buy the reasoning that’s presented though.
June 5, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Polly — I think it may be because “stop this and let me go” getting ignored is exactly why the customers visit the site, and is a main component of what doms get off on.
June 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM
“I think it may be because “stop this and let me go” getting ignored is exactly why the customers visit the site, and is a main component of what doms (did you see how I used the lower case there, everybody?) get off on.”
That’s part of what I was getting at re, fantasy versus reality. Something tells me that people fantasizing about ‘pretend’ raping someone are not also getting hot about the person being ‘pretend’ raped expressing hir enthusiastic consent.
How many people DO fantasize about consent? (This is a general philosophical question, not one asking for hand-raising, which I will address at the end.)
Why don’t they?
I’ve also been raped, but reliving rape was not such a good idea for me. I suppose if I’d let myself be “trained,” I could have come to think it was a good idea, but as it stood I did not.
For me, acting out CONSENT seems to work. And I wonder why more people don’t come to that conclusion.
That saying “yes! in fact, I would like you to do this thing that you just now asked me about”, or “yes! that sounds like a great idea!” is a viable option for any people, not just people who have been raped.
As opposed to saying more “no! please don’t!” or being trained to think your no means yes or you have to say yes or whatever but it’s all pretend, just no please no … I mean, yes master.
Now for the point that obviously needs addressing.
When I ask questions, I honestly don’t want individual anecdotes. I’m not asking people to justify themselves or self-flagellate (where did you come to that conclusion from ‘self-examination’?! there is a way to examine oneself without flagellation, or else no one would get anywhere).
In philosophical terms, in a broad sense, why would one wish to cause harm or be harmed, daydream about doing something they wouldn’t do (even if it would have no negative repercussions), etc?
Not YOU, but ‘one.’ In a general sense.
(Other than “it feels good.” Starving myself feels really good, too, as I’ve pointed out. That doesn’t mean the thought train can end there.)
June 5, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Faith,
I totally forgot to add this last night but you remind of the author Inga Muscio. If you aren’t already familiar with her work you might want to check her out. I think she would resonate with you.
June 5, 2010 at 2:20 PM
@joy
I honestly don’t see the logic either. I am a rape victim myself and do not see the logic but it is sometimes used as a form of therapy. I think it is sick and do not condone it but it is still out there.
I know people here are saying that safewords can’t help. Once the damage is done, it’s done. Yes that is true, but have you ever tried it yourself? That is my question. Have you ever been tied up and teased, tortured, and pleasured until you are within an inch of your sanity and are begging to cum? And when you finally do, it’s like you have been released into the stratosphere and you are flying. All that teasing and torture, pain and pleasure at comes to one phenomenal head. It is like someone put you in a sling and released you so that you soared so high, you lost yourself and you slowly but surely float gently back to reality on a cloud of ecstasy.
Sorry, just reliving my experience. For some people, it is quite an addiction. It’s not the only way to get off, but it is certainly one of the most intense ways. Not that a orgasm not given within a “scene” can’t be intense but as I said before “To each his own”. Ans
Everyone gets off in their own way. For a small portion of those people, even being raped is a flying experience. Because while you are in control the whole time, you are putting your trust in the other person, trusting that when you say “red” or “lily” or whatever your safeword is the MOMENT you feel uncomfortable, that they will stop. I know, it is kind of contradictory, trusting someone to rape you, but it is happening out there and we can fight, argue, and debate about it all day long until the end of time but it’s not going to stop people from doing it, not at kink.com or anywhere else that it may happen at. It WILL happen no matter what you guys or anyone says.
Now, I am sure I am going to be ripped to pieces soon but I just thought I would say this because it’s true, at least from my experience.
June 5, 2010 at 2:21 PM
@joy
I honestly don’t see the logic either. I am a rape victim myself and do not see the logic but it is sometimes used as a form of therapy. I think it is sick and do not condone it but it is still out there.
I know people here are saying that safewords can’t help. Once the damage is done, it’s done. Yes that is true, but have you ever tried it yourself? That is my question. Have you ever been tied up and teased, tortured, and pleasured until you are within an inch of your sanity and are begging to cum? And when you finally do, it’s like you have been released into the stratosphere and you are flying. All that teasing and torture, pain and pleasure at comes to one phenomenal head. It is like someone put you in a sling and released you so that you soared so high, you lost yourself and you slowly but surely float gently back to reality on a cloud of ecstasy.
Sorry, just reliving my experience. For some people, it is quite an addiction. It’s not the only way to get off, but it is certainly one of the most intense ways. Not that a orgasm not given within a “scene” can’t be intense but as I said before “To each his own”. And this is mine.
Everyone gets off in their own way. For a small portion of those people, even being raped is a flying experience. Because while you are in control the whole time, you are putting your trust in the other person, trusting that when you say “red” or “lily” or whatever your safeword is the MOMENT you feel uncomfortable, that they will stop. I know, it is kind of contradictory, trusting someone to rape you, but it is happening out there and we can fight, argue, and debate about it all day long until the end of time but it’s not going to stop people from doing it, not at kink.com or anywhere else that it may happen at. It WILL happen no matter what you guys or anyone says.
Now, I am sure I am going to be ripped to pieces soon but I just thought I would say this because it’s true, at least from my experience. If I have offended anyone by this, I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize.
June 5, 2010 at 11:50 PM
I’m (that’s me personally, not speaking for anyone else) not denying for a minute that you or anyone else Ana enjoy what you do sexually. I’ve met enough people who are palpably NOT deluded who say they enjoy it too, that’s why.
For a start off, as I’ve pointed out about nine zillion times on the internetz, no one can read anyone else’s mind. Well not to my knowledge anyway, though I’d be happy to be pointed to scientic research that proves the contrary.
So you’re not about to be ripped to pieces by me.
But that’s not the point of this post. And yes I know the thread has drifted considerably by now, and maybe some people have said you’re deluded, I really can’t be arsed to read it all in detail to find out.
The point is how Kink.com affects society as a whole, and in particular female people in that society. Because sorry Margaret Thatcher there IS such a thing as society. In fact I’d go even further and say that no man, or woman, is an island.
And so we come to the crux of the matter. How far should an individuals’ (sincerely held, absolutely genuine) beliefs/feelings be respected in a society.
Sometimes people’s interests conflict. So society (as a whole) has to use other methods to decide what’s in the interests of society as a whole, rather than one individual.
What Nine Deuce is saying with this post is that the existence of kink.com – in her opinion – damages her. And I’m saying it damages me (even though to download it would now be illegal where I live, I’m pretty damn sure it’s still done).
We could also argue for the next 200 years (something I not only don’t have the lifespan, I most certainly don’t have the strength/inclination to do about whether or not the existence of violent porn makes rape/torture any less or more likely. It’s impossible to construct an experiment one way or the other, since you’d have two find two exactly equal groups of subjects, but one of them would have to have never been exposed to porn. Good luck with that. However common sense, and my own personal experience (you will respect my experience! nb joke) suggests that if you don’t want to do something doing stuff that reminds you of it isn’t the way to go. I go back to my diet analogy. When I’m trying desperately not to eat something I crave, a coping strategy that works for me ISN’T to have loads of that foodstuff (eg cream cakes) in my fridge and go and look at it. Cos I’d eat them, that’s why. Distraction is a hell of a lot more effective.
But anyway, let’s assume for the minute that there IS no relationship between kink.com and levels of rape/torture of women. Is the existence of kink.com still justified?
What Nine Deuce is saying in this post is that she doesn’t want to live in a world where the rape and torture of women is presented as entertainment. My view too. Obviously there are some people who enjoy such things. They’d say differently. But we’re both female – and therefore entitled to have a view on the presenting of the rape and torture of women as entertainment. Because its very existence affects US directly, not just the people who get off on it. It affects us psychically. If affects our sense of safety and comfort and yes – happiness – in the world.
Now obviously there are wider aspects to kink.com – such as the aspects I’ve run through above. As I’ve stated many times, I’m broadly in agreement with the legal position in my country which is that a person should not be able to consent to an assault upon themselves. I think a person should be able to self harm to any degree they like, but the minute a second human being enters the picture, the possibility of coercion raises its ugly head, that’s why. I’m also in agreement with the health and safety law in my country.
But – to wrap up what is heading for the guiness book of records as the longest blog comment ever – I don’t think the mere fact that some people get off on it, justifies the existence of kink.com.
June 6, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Joy, there are all sorts of reasonings put about for ‘rape fantasies’. Whatevs. But as you say, nobody ever seems to fantasise (or if they do, they don’t seem to express it) about having sex with somebody who wholeheartedly enthusiastically wants to have sex with them in a completely equal way. No dominance or anything. Just two (or more) people making luuurve. There might have been the odd Barry White song along those lines, but that’s about it.
When I was discussing BDSM in the pub (as you do) somebody said ‘well it’s not that different from ordinary sex’. And that is the problem. A problem I think radical feminists may have pointed out a time or two and been told ‘stop oppresssing me’. The whole of bloody human sexuality is built on a model of dominance. We are told a lack of dominance just isn’t erotic, becuase it is equated with desire.
Other things that are built on a model of dominance include capitalism, work and life in general. I think it’s a bad thing, call me a prude.
June 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM
Ana – to repeat what I said. If you agree to something, freely and without coercion, it ain’t rape. Some rape/abuse victims do experience arousal during the acts done to them and often feel guilty about it. But if you agreed freely and without coercion AND if you can say stop and the act will be stopped, it ain’t rape.
As for ‘it’s happening out there and nothing will ever stop it’. Probably true. Murder is happening out there and nothing will ever stop it. Child abuse is happening out there and nothing will ever stop it. Rape is happening out there and nothing will ever stop it. Do you think that’s a reason not to TRY to stop it, as much as we can?
Because I don’t. There is a difference between enthusiastically endorsing something and it happening despite your best efforts to prevent it.
June 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM
@polly
There is only one Polly commenting on this thread AFAIK.but I’m sometimes logged into a different wordpress ID, hence the different avatar.
Gotcha, thanks.
Not just because they’re producing illegal porn, but because it’s not legal to assault your employees in they way they do, even if they do consent.
Uh-huh. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve been told many times that the bottoms in the Spanner case you defended earlier (that was you, right?) were also arrested and charged with “aiding and abetting assault.” Their own “assault.”
Not saying the issue of determining when consent isn’t valid isn’t a tricky one, but I wouldn’t personally hold U.K. practices up as shining examples if that’s the way “victims” of kinky “assault” are handled.
I don’t know what you think of health and safety law at work generally Bean, but I think it’s a good thing for people’s safety to be protected in the workplace.
Of course I agree with that. But there are many occupations where workers agree to do something physically risky, on the understanding that, say, the equipment is maintained and people have been trained to use it properly.
Not being an industry insider, I don’t know for sure how well Kink.com treats its performers. I’ve heard too many glowing reports to readily believe all their performers are horribly mistreated, though.
However I’d fundamentally disagree about the solution. Every lesbian and gay man I know calls what they do sexually ‘sex’.
Of course it’s othering when people call the sex you have “[special name] sex,” but I think being named is better than the alternative.
Bean: the problem with your eating candy example is that you are not saying you don’t want to do it,
Pretty damn sure that I don’t, in fact, want to do it. Hang on, let me check.
…Nope, don’t want to eat candy all day.
Getting sick is a consequence I cannot separate from the action. Like I said, that makes the reality of the idea truly unattractive. Yes, I suppose I might eat candy all day if it didn’t make me sick. But that’s not possible, and theorizing endlessly about what I might do if reality wasn’t reality seems downright silly to me. Don’t know how much clearer I can make that.
And if I could eat them without what I perceive as a negative consequence, (putting on weight) I would.
Unrelated, but I don’t suppose you read Kate Harding.
June 6, 2010 at 1:35 AM
@ ND
Bean – Why would you assume I think our economic system is a good thing?
I didn’t, exactly – I had a feeling you’d say this. But I don’t see you making nearly the same fuss about capitalism in general.
Like polly, you seem to be suggesting that Kink.com’s crimes under capitalism are somehow “worse.” That porn, first, is a greater degree of exploitation – and kinky porn greater than that.
I’m not buying that – if someone likes/wants to do the sort of work that Kink.com does (and you can’t convince me they don’t have less “horrifying” choices of porn employers in California), and is okay with just getting paid for anything they are less than thrilled about, I don’t see a greater degree of exploitation there.
June 6, 2010 at 1:50 AM
I’ve heard this argument before, (many, many times before in fact but never from anyone who didn’t practice/advocate BDSM) and I fail to see the logic.
I’m debating whether or not to say anything to this. ‘Cause I’m kinda wary of being told (again) that I’m sick. But I’m someone who has a kink that stems directly from sexual abuse – not exactly a rape fantasy stemming from rape, but in the same ballpark.
The first thing I’d say is that I certainly didn’t choose that kink. I have found it therapeutic, but it’s not like picking a type of therapist out of the phone book. I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually try re-enacting rape for the purposes of “therapy,” rather than it being something they already want to do. I can only see it being a disaster.
But the empowering/therapeutic part goes like this: when I was abused, I was powerless. Now I’m not. It’s like taking what happened to me and turning it into a story which I am re-writing. For me, and for my pleasure – not my abuser’s. I get to turn my abuse around into something that benefits me.
I don’t know if it’s like that for other people. But to me, the point is actually that I AM consenting, on at least some meta level. I have to be; it’s my story.
June 6, 2010 at 2:29 AM
Can I also ask those who continually cite “consent” as a gold standard for whether a behaviour is acceptable or not, whether they think a 17 year old adult having sex with a 10 year old child is acceptable? If the 10 year old child consents?
If your answer is ‘no’ you have just made a judgement, in fact you’ve potentially made more than one. Firstly you may say ‘a 10 year old child cannot consent to sex, they are too young to have the capacity’. And secondly you may say ‘sex with children of 10 is morally wrong’.
And if so, you’d most likely be in step with most of the rest of today’s society. But the 17 year old in question may think their actions are morally justifiable. They may say, I enjoyed it, the 10 year old child enjoyed it. So who’s right?
So – consent is not a simple matter. And everyone makes judgements. If you think child abuse is bad, you’ve made a judgement. If you think rape is bad, you’ve made a judgement.
June 6, 2010 at 2:54 AM
lucy- I did engage with what you said, both before calling it bullshit, and *by* calling it bullshit. glad you found the noticing-of-your-fake-British-online-accent funny though, as even though I can’t stand you, I did feel like it was mean-spirited after I said it, so I’m glad it didn’t make you cry. I’m not being sarcastic, in case anyone’s wondering. Never heard of Scouser.
everybody else, about the rape fantasy thing:
if whoever it is who’s doing so could refrain from calling it “rape” when what you’re talking about is “rape play” which is itself a completely inaccurate name, I would appreciate it. Acting out scenes with consenting partners where you pretend not to want to be fucked and they pretend not to care, and you have the “power” to stop it if you need to, is by definition not rape, and not rape play, and not fantasy rape. It’s “wanting to feel powerless without any of the bad side effects of actual powerlessness.”
There is no such thing as rape-that-you-can-stop-with-a-safe-word. What that is, is not rape. And talking about that type of kink scene by using the word rape (and some in this thread haven’t even bothered to throw on the “fantasy” or “play” part with it), especially in claiming that it can be healing for god’s sake, is horrifying. I’ve been raped. It would not heal me to be raped again, and if it heals other people to play around with the illusion of force in the presence of whatever they deem as consent, that’s not my business or my concern. It’s also not rape. Please stop calling it that.
June 6, 2010 at 7:20 AM
“Then why pay anyone for anything? Our entire economic system depends on our being paid when we consent.”
Bean,
I’ve personally never figured that one out myself. This is why I’m anti-capitalist.
“It WILL happen no matter what you guys or anyone says.”
Ana,
So will rape, murder, child abuse, sex trafficking, war, and all other forms of horror that take place on this planet. That doesn’t mean that anyone who cares about these things should just shut up and let them take place. It may not be possible to eradicate these things altogether, but I absolutely do believe that it is possible to reduce the level of occurrences of these things in society by raising awareness and by working to empower people so that they don’t feel compelled to resort to such extreme behaviors and so that they aren’t as vulnerable to being victim to such extreme behaviors. Talking about it is also a form of therapy in and of itself. I might not be able to stop men from raping, for instance, but it damn sure makes me feel better to talk about these things and do what little I can help survivors and fight to try to get men to understand the mechanisms and social-conditioning that causes them to rape in the first place. It’s a helluva lot better than throwing ones hands up in the air and rolling over and playing dead, so to speak.
June 6, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Bean – Under capitalism, oppressed classes see more exploitation than less oppressed classes. Hence, women and basically anyone who isn’t a capitalist white male are at greater risk of exploitation. When our culture is as misogynistic as it is, and when women’s labor is as purposely undervalued as it is, it’s not a surprise that the most exploitative work tends to be done by women and/or female children. As to whether Kink.com is worse than other porn production companies, that depends. I don’t know if they’re worse than Extreme Associates, but I do think that sexualizing torture might be worse than (though on the same continuum as) your garden variety hetero “see this [insert sexual gendered insult for a woman] take [insert # of dicks] in the [insert hole of choice]” porn. They both turn women into reviled objects. People will claim that Kink.com evinces more respect for the women who work for them, but let’s be serious. They might have to do that because they’re FUCKING TORTURING THEM and KEEPING THEM IN CAGES and they need to put on a really convincing show in order to avoid going to prison. The point isn’t that the women who work for them should go seek employ with Vivid instead — because they peddle anti-woman propaganda too — but that we need to be wondering why there are industries that exist to feed such misogynistic fantasies.
June 6, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Deuce -
Under capitalism, oppressed classes see more exploitation than less oppressed classes. Hence, women and basically anyone who isn’t a capitalist white male are at greater risk of exploitation.
Yes. And getting paid $1100-$1500 a night to have a type of sex on camera that you like anyway is one of the worst things you can think of?
I know several men and women from the Philippines who are stuck working in fast food and cleaning toilets when they are qualified to work as dental assistants and high school biology teachers. There’s no way out of that arrangement for them because of contracts they signed coming over, and they’ve been unable to see their families back home for 2-3 years now.
I’m a little less worried about the women in Kink.com videos, who I suspect have much greater power to walk away if they feel exploited.
but that we need to be wondering why there are industries that exist to feed such misogynistic fantasies.
Well, the general answer to that question is actually pretty obvious, isn’t it?
Anyway, I’ve agreed that there’s a lot of misogynistic tropes popular in kink, and I agree the amount of focus on women is also misogynistic.
I’ll have to continue to disagree, though, that all kink with female bottoms is inherently hateful. I don’t think it’s hateful to women that there’s videos of women locked in cages. I think it’s hateful to women that there’s many more videos of women locked in cages then there are such videos of men. If that was your complaint, I’d be entirely behind you.
@joan
Never heard of Scouser.
It’s a person who lives in a certain area OF ENGLAND. Specifically Liverpool.
But then, if you or your family aren’t English, you wouldn’t be likely to know that, right?
June 6, 2010 at 10:19 AM
How about no videos of anyone locked in cages? I’m not looking for a situation in which the shittiness is spread equally between men and women, but rather one in which the aggregate shittiness quotient is reduced. Know what I mean? As for the example of the dude from the Philippines working at Taco Bell, how does that invalidate my point? Capitalism is fucked, whether it manifests itself as women being locked in cages for men to wank over or as the example you gave. Still, there are places in the world where people lock real women in cages against their will and torture them for sexual purposes, and it’s bothersome to think that there are people who normalize that kind of thing and repackage it for public consumption, then expect people not to have an ethical problem with it. Does that make the individual Kink.com model’s existence shittier than that of an economically oppressed immigrant? Not necessarily, but that isn’t all that’s at stake here. That model might be the world’s happiest person — and yippie kai-yay for her — but what about the people who have to deal with the men who consume this shit? What about the people who this is being done to for real? Why don’t they count? The example you gave deserves empathy to be sure. I am a woman, however, and I have to live in the world with people who wank to Kink.com. Right now no one is trying to force me to work at Taco Bell despite my education, and even if they were, I’d much rather that occur than someone lock me in a cage and cattle prod and rape me, and hence I’m going to focus my energy on what to me seems a greater threat. I’ll leave the other issues to people who blog about those issues for the most part.
June 6, 2010 at 12:26 PM
bean –
“It’s a person who lives in a certain area OF ENGLAND. Specifically Liverpool.
But then, if you or your family aren’t English, you wouldn’t be likely to know that, right?”
Wait, so lucy’s affectation is somehow not an affectation if anyone she may be related to is theoretically (not even sure what you base this on) from Liverpool? Also, FYI, your italics and caps sadly did not shield you from stupid assumptions. Half my family is from England, and I still – being American and all – missed the pretend-you-yourself-are-English training that you seem to be claiming those related to Brits automatically receive.
Way to fail at putting me in my place AND refuting the fact that lucy’s full of shit, though.
June 6, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Equal exploitation of women and men is not a desirable goal; the goal is no exploitation at all.
June 6, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Bean,
I should have been clearer in my word usage. When I talk about trauma, I am not necessarily talking about a specific traumatic event, like my rape at age 15, for example. That event is apparently at the root of a whole bunch of my more confusing compulsions and behaviours.
However, I often have a difficult time delineating between the effects of that and the trauma of growing up in a hierarchy that inherently values me less; a process that became acute when I hit puberty.
I was trying to reference the point that Audre Lorde makes, while addressing the issue of negotiating inclusiveness when trying to bring about change.
Framing and accepting the scenarios at kink.com as progressive because of the appearance of consent – whether that consent is real or performed – and accusing anyone who questions them as “attacking people’s sexuality” shuts down discourse on how sexualized violence reinforces an unjust society.
Because people are able to get off on being violated and often seek it out does not make it revolutionary. Just because I had a damn good reason for putting away a half bottle of Irish and a pack of smokes a night for a period of time when I was working through some of my own trauma, does not mean that those activities were good for my body.
No one is attacking your sexuality. Please, I wish you all the consensual pleasure you can find.
However, it is legitimate to say that the existence of kink.com and the mainstreaming of sadomasochism in popular culture is worthy of discussion on a feminist blog. So is calling bullshit on a spin that implies that anyone who is uncomfortable with a woman screaming in pain while she lies face down on a metal table in a pool of her own shit (which is what I saw at that website) is repressed and missing out on something “amazing”. So is calling bullshit on the assertion that this stuff is shaking the status quo.
June 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM
The point I was making about “operation spanner” Bean is that nobody was convicted of having sex. They were convicted of assault. And consent is not a defence to a charge of assault. You can indeed aid and abet your own assault. If you read the newspaper report I linked to about the man breaking his girlfriend’s legs then the judge said she was lucky not to be in court herself. I don’t know why that was – maybe a decision was taken that it would have been unlikely a jury would convict her. You’d have to ask the CPS.
The decision to prosecute the ‘bottoms’ in R v Brown has however been cited as homophobic. The reason is that in other cases female heterosexual defendants were not similarly treated. You can read more in the ever helpful Wikipedia (though I’m told it’s run by someone who made his money in porn?, anyway this is a fairly comprehensive explanation.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner
The point is that people who commit similar acts in non sexual circumstances are convicted, and as we’ve seen jailed for 3 years in the case of the leg breaking dude.
It’s also worth noting that the defendants in Spanner actually pleaded guilty.
I don’t expect you to agree with the law on assault, however I think it’s correct. And the leg breaking dude illustrates why. But the reason the law wasn’t changed after Spanner (it was originally proposed it was) was that domestic violence groups lobbied the conservative government, pointing out that it would make obtaining convictions in domestic violence cases more or less impossible.
June 6, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Yes I have read Kate Hardings blog, Bean. I am however entitled to view putting on weight as a negative consequence (for me) if I want to. Are you denying my EXPERIENCE or something? How very dare you.
Not that it’s any of your damn business, but I’m dieting for health reasons (high cholesterol). But even if I were dieting for pure vanity reasons, it’s a bit body fascist of you to imply I shouldn’t because of Kate Harding’s blog or anyone else’s blog. If Kate Harding is happy with her weight that’s her business. My weight is my business. Not yours, not hers, mine.
I’m surprised to see such an advocate of individual freedom suggesting I don’t know my own mind though. Oops!
June 6, 2010 at 1:25 PM
And BTW bean, I don’t necessarily think making erotic films per se is a ‘greater degree of exploitation’ than working in Macdonalds. I think being physically injured by your job IS a greater degree of exploitation than working in a safe workplace though.
I also think the same thing applies to mines, chemical factories, you name it. But those workplaces have to be SAFE! You could not, and I’m going to repeat it, legally injure your employees in the way Kink.com does in this country. And I think that’s a bloody good thing.
I actually have the crazy communist idea that workplaces should NOT be allowed to subject their employees to deliberate physical injury.
June 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM
If you were a scouser Bean, (I’m not but some of my best friends….) you’d know that simply living in Liverpool isn’t sufficient to make you a scouser. As this woman found out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7165655/Ricky-Tomlinson-to-stand-for-parliament-against-Labour-candidate.html
June 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM
Anyway I have to point out that after 833 comments and endless repetition of the same points, I personally have nothing left to say on this endlessly fascinating topic. Other than this.
I have heard all the following arguments.
1)Stop asking me to justify myself (I’m not, you imagined that bit)
2)You’re just being judgemental (Yes I am and so are you)
3)It’ll just happen anyway (so that’s a good reason not to try to stop it then?)
4) You’re as bad as people who think homosexuality should be illegal. (well no because it’s not the sex I’m objecting to, people who think homosexuality should be illegal are objecting to something they’re happy for others to do on the basis of the sex of the participants).
5)How very dare you tell me what I think/feel! (I’m not doing, see point no 1)
6)I can’t help the way I am (I never said you could).
7)Well all jobs are exploitative (yes, we’ve covered that it’s called capitalism, and had I not deleted my old blogs I could direct to the 3,967 posts or thereabouts I wrote covering it).
8)But there are female (heterosexual) doms (And? See the twisty post linked too for why this makes no difference whatsoever to THE REAL WORLD).
Etc etc etc. Though I must admit that telling me I should read Kate Harding’s blog (I have done, and I wasn’t impressed) was a new one. But bean appears to think I’m a bit too thick to have heard of concepts like fat acceptance and made up my own befuddled little head about what to do with my own body. I obviously need ‘training’ in my ‘rights’ by Ms Harding. Like I said. OOPS!
What is interesting, or perhaps very, very dull is that in absolutely every internet discussion that vaguely touches on BDSM ever, you can just guarantee that these points are going to pop up at some time. Endlessly repeated. No matter whether they in any way relate to what is being said. They certainly didn’t most of the time here as far as I can see. But that’s fairly standard.
Which is basically why I – at least – am saying enough. I am now entering a twelve step programme for people compelled to participate on similar discussions on the internetz. And may Kate Harding have mercy on my soul, cos I’m still on a diet.
June 6, 2010 at 6:27 PM
What polly, lizor, and joankelly said.
joankelly, I had meant to mention the “if you consent to it, it isn’t rape” before, but (like ND and the capitalization) thought it was too obvious. So thank you for that.
Ana, your questioning me about my sex life disturbs me. You basically just asked if I’ve ever had an orgasm before.
OH, NO! I haven’t*! What … you mean those are GOOD?
* I’m lying. I have. And not through BDSM. However, I have been BDSM’ed, thank you, for a prolonged period of time — six months — and the loss of my rights and personal freedom terrified me. I never had an orgasm, due to fear and stress. Sometimes, when a woman is in a coercive situation, she finds herself unable to orgasm. No “stratosphere” there.
And the orgasms I have had, have been no less exciting and “like going to the stratosphere” than had I been restrained, or burned, or penetrated in a nontraditional orifice (or an orifice at all! did you know that women can orgasm without penetration? yeah, totally!) during them.
Not all non-BDSM is “boring” missionary-position “lurve”-”making”, as people have pointed out. You can even get out of breath doing it, without the handcuffs and some dude (or lady, if you are queer) deeming to tell you when you are allowed to orgasm! It can last a long time, and feel pretty good, even without the addition of agonizing pain! Astonishing information, I’m sure.
Thanks for the “concern”, I presume about my liberation and possible prudishness, though.
And no, I am not going to provide anecdotal evidence.
June 6, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Sorry for the long comment. Catching up.
joy,
“BDSM [is] a microcosm of the partriarchy.”
Really? How do you figure? Cos, honestly, if anything, I’ve found it to be a space that does a fair job of mocking the patriarchy and turning it on its head. I find people who claim this either have an experience of BDSM that I don’t (and thus shouln’t be making universal claims about BDSM) or are just making assumptions about it. One can use similar thinking to make the same claims about feminism, really. I find some feminisms to be very much a microcosm of patriarchy.
Feminists would ask for the same kind of explanation from an anorexic…
Not all feminists. This feminist and others don’t demand women explain themselves. That honestly smacks of patriarchy. We just ask that they be introspective on how they have been affected by patriarchy without demanding they explain it. Not our jobs to police women, you know (That would be what patriarchy thinks its job is). Not just regarding anorexia, but anything.
There has been no similar introspection (ie, “I know that it is patriarchal forces that drive me to do this, but I do it anyway to comfort myself”) here. The closest has been “it’s not because I decided it was trendy.”
Again, nobody owes this to explain themselves or be open introspective, especially in a space that is clearly biased to saying that people who engage in BDSM are wrong. I’ve been introspective and call bullshit on the idea that I haven’t. But I’m not going to share that introspection when people here won’t consider it in good faith.
The fact that some people (not merely BDSMers, either! so please don’t say that I’m saying BDSMers somehow cause rape!) choose to replicate rape over. and over. and over. again in their bedroom and call it trendy or empowering or “a gift” isn’t going to make more or less rape for those who don’t.
I don’t buy the argument that I replicate rape in BDSM. You don’t know what the heck I do, so how can you make this claim? You’re referring to BDSM as though it has independent existence and has rules that must be followed to actually be doing BDSM. This isn’t freaking patriarchy we’re talking about. If anything it’s more like feminism where people agree at best on a few ideas and then have very different ideas about anything beyond that (and then argue over who’s doing it right, just like in feminism). Yes, I’m again deliberately being provocative, but my point is that where you see an institution I see a do-it-yourself kit.
Also, I agree with sneeky bunny: That being said, I have never held the point of view that what I do in bed (BDSM or non BDSM) is a feminist act. I don’t think it has to be, but that’s just me. I prefer to think of feminism that actually challenges patriarchy or even frees me from it, not as something that disciplines me just as firmly as patriarchy does (though the idea of feminism as a form of BDSM is bleakly amusing).
In philosophical terms, in a broad sense, why would one wish to cause harm or be harmed, daydream about doing something they wouldn’t do (even if it would have no negative repercussions), etc?
Not YOU, but ‘one.’ In a general sense.
See, I wonder about that, too. But then I don’t see BDSM as being about harm. I see it being about pleasure. It may look like harm, but then so does marathon running and yet people tell me it can be quite pleasurable. So, I see your question as missing the point. Plus, who gets to decide what is harmful? You seem comfortable with deciding what is harmful for other people even when they disagree. I’m not so comfortable with that idea.
polly,
I’m (that’s me personally, not speaking for anyone else) not denying for a minute that you or anyone else Ana enjoy what you do sexually. I’ve met enough people who are palpably NOT deluded who say they enjoy it too, that’s why.
Nicely done on implying that most people who do BDSM ARE deluded. “I’ve met enough anti-porn, anti-BDSM radical feminists who are palpably NOT deluded to think they might have some things worth listening to.” Just saying.
Because its very existence affects US directly, not just the people who get off on it. It affects us psychically. If affects our sense of safety and comfort and yes – happiness – in the world.
This is the exact same argument that is used against gay, lesbian, bi, or any kind of non-heterosexual sex you can think of, as well as the existence of trans people, and so on. Straight people and cis people are always saying how people not being straight or cis threatens their sense of safety and comfort. Using the same argument against BDSM does not make it any more compelling or valid. And, I’m sorry, but I couldn’t comprehend how your later clarification in any way changes that. Straight people do not believe that what non-straight people do is “really” sex (Witness their focuses on the presumption of anal sex with gay men, the assumed lack of penetration with lesbians, and so on). It is the non-validity of the sex and how it affects straight people (“causing” straight people to engage in non-PIV sex, etc) that is precisely the issue for them. It’s a proper parallel.
joan,
Yes, you did do a minor engagement with some of what I said before you just started calling it bullshit and being personally insulting. I apologise for suggesting you didn’t. I also think I addressed everything you said was bullshit and explained how it wasn’t. I’m still laughing about the “fake British accent” thing because I’ve been writing this way since I was a child and I don’t have any version of a British (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish) speaking accent. I blame reading PG Wodehouse and my mother’s English mysteries as well as an aunt who moved to the UK when I was young and was very influential on me. I’m don’t think I could stop writing with at least some Britishisms (Briticisms?) if I tried. You worried about making me cry? Nice to know you’re not evil and all, but I only cry about things and people I care about not random Internet people who are trying (unsuccessfully) to push my buttons. bean is right about what Scouser means. There are all kinds of neat terms for people from various cities in England, such as Manc (Manchester) and Brum (Birmingham). As to your curiousity as to why I might speak like a Scouser, that comes from recently having spent a fair amount of time talking and listening to Scousers. It may or may not fade over time. Okay, if I’ve now fed your strange curiousity as to my personal history enough, let me now get back to the actual point of this thread…
Nine Deuce,
They might have to do that because they’re FUCKING TORTURING THEM and KEEPING THEM IN CAGES and they need to put on a really convincing show in order to avoid going to prison.
If you really believe they’re torturing people then you really should be contacting the authorities not issuing Internet dares. Or, better yet, organise an Internet campaign to get lots of people to contact the authorities to end the torture. I’m perfectly serious. I don’t understand how you can believe they are actually committing torture and not be at least supporting an active campaign to end it. Did I miss that post somewhere?
but that we need to be wondering why there are industries that exist to feed such misogynistic fantasies.
Like bean, I think we have no need to wonder. We live under a patriarchy. While we might disagree whether such fantasies would exist at all without a patriarchal culture, there’s no question that they are so prevalent because we are under patriarchy. Part of why you don’t see me defending kink.com so dramatically is because I’m not a fan of misogynistic fantasies like that.
Also, what about women who lock themselves in cages? What are we going to do about them? Or are you only against the depiction to other people of women being portrayed as being locked in cages? (Plus, there’s the whole question of what it means to be “locked in a cage” when someone is doing so voluntarily and can get out at any time.) I really do want to understand where this line is for you. At what point does someone else’s sexual practice become acceptable to you?
June 6, 2010 at 7:56 PM
Lucy,
I don’t think it would be unfair to hold someone accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their acts. You ask at what point someone else’s sexual practices become acceptable as if to imply that one can never justifiably impugn another based on their (presumably consensual) sexual practices. Even if that were true, defending BDSM and defending Kink.com are two different things.
I have no qualms with a perfectly consensual BDSM relationships, but portrayals of such in pornography can have consequences that go beyond the actors themselves. By analogy, peoples private drug use is not something I should be legitimately concerned about, but what about the effects that drug use might have on children in the home, or the aggregate affect of maintaining a “drug culture” in a given society? When other people are affected, intervention becomes more legitimate. The same is true with websites like Kink.com. I think that maintaining an army of 100M men in this country who orgasm to “torture” probably has a harmful affect on their sexual lives and the women involved in them.
The companies and actors involved in this protection may not be personally harmed, but that does not mean that nobody is. When this harm can be demonstrated or inferred from evidence, e.g., rape statistics, testimony, etc, I think a judgement can be rightfully issued on whether or not it should be legal/moral to portray these things in media and distribute them. This whole thread has gone off course numerous times into debates about the BDSM lifestyle itself. What that lifestyle is or isn’t is almost wholly irrelevant. The only question is whether or not putting these kinds of depictions (as they exist on websites like Kink.com) into media and distributing them across the net can have a harmful affect on society and its women. If so, it should be scrutinized more closely and probably proscribed.
June 7, 2010 at 12:13 PM
I think female people are, in fact, right to challenge, point out, object to, and condemn misogyny wherever they see it, whether it be in bdsm porn, bdsm practices, homosexual practices, homosexual porn, transsexuality, and any other thing under the sun. Where misogyny exists, it is any female person’s right to criticize it. Just because others may condemn the same thing for different reasons does not mean female people have to keep quiet about their own objections.
And repeating something you’ve said that was bullshit the first time is called “repeating the same bullshit,” not “addressing the charge that it’s bullshit.”
But thanks for at least admitting that your affectation is an affectation. I like to give credit for one non-bullshit utterance where it’s due.
June 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Sorry Nine Deuce, I have returned from crapaholics anonymous to answer one more vital question: And it is this…….
Q:Also, what about women who lock themselves in cages? What are we going to do about them?
A: (obvious when you think about it). Lock them up and throw away the key!
Boom!Boom! As Basil Brush used to say. (he’s a britisher TV comedy puppet fox who dressed in a cape).
Ok I really am going now, but I couldn’t resist. Thorry.
June 8, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Yes I have read Kate Hardings blog, Bean. I am however entitled to view putting on weight as a negative consequence (for me) if I want to. Are you denying my EXPERIENCE or something? How very dare you.
Christ alive, polly, “have you seen this?” was a completely neutral, open question – and the link was provided in good faith. God knows most people I know have never heard of her.
That you devoted an entire comment to throw that back at me would shock me if I wasn’t used to seeing your comments.
In retrospect, you’re right that I was stupid to post that. You’ve given me no reason to give a flying hippo shit, and I won’t be making that mistake again.
And with that, I am entirely burnt out on this discussion.
June 8, 2010 at 3:56 AM
“Equal exploitation of women and men is not a desirable goal; the goal is no exploitation at all.”
Well, that’s true…but it could be argued that equal exploitation of men would be a useful step towards that.
I mean, how many people here are here because of something that has happened to them or someone they know, that weren’t so interested before, or wouldn’t have been if it hadn’t happened?
June 8, 2010 at 11:35 AM
“In retrospect, you’re right that I was stupid to post that. You’ve given me no reason to give a flying hippo shit, and I won’t be making that mistake again.”
Yes of course, that’s all it was, you were in error for posting that because you mistakenly *cared* about polly, not because it was a condescending thing to do, and your condescension was responded to in a way you didn’t like.
June 16, 2010 at 2:01 AM
Joan, I’m pretty tired of having nothing but suspicious motives projected onto my posts; and I think that the constant misinterpretations of my emotional state here says more about others than me.
I don’t care very much about polly, but I DO give a shit about the fact that the weight-loss industry profits off women’s life-long misery. I consider the importance of bringing it down to override whatever personal dislike I have of someone here.
June 16, 2010 at 12:08 PM
Well I have a couple of ideas for ya then, Bean. A) go take a fucking nap with your tired-ness. B) Calling your behavior and your words what they were is neither a state of suspicious-ness nor a misinterpretation. C) Your actual comment – your words, not anyone else’s account of it, but your actual words were:
“In retrospect, you’re right that I was stupid to post that. You’ve given me no reason to give a flying hippo shit, and I won’t be making that mistake again.”
The “I was stupid for posting that” part is clearly sarcasm. You don’t think you were stupid, you think Polly was wrong to respond with un-graciousness to your concern so you’re doing an “I take it back then!” declaration. The “you’ve given me no reason to give a flying hippo shit” obviously refers to giving a shit about *Polly*, not your most recent claim that what you were originally expressing was a concern about bringing down the weight loss industry’s predation on women’s misery.
Unless, are you really expecting me to believe that your first comment was about weight loss industry/women’s misery in general, and not Polly, and you were ready to stop-caring about something so important to you (unlike Polly, who is not important to you at all) because we were mean to you about it? Because otherwise none of your most recent comment makes sense.
Finally, my last helpful suggestion is: admit that it was a condescending thing to say, that you did not like being confronted and/or mocked for your condescension, and that you still think we’re a bunch of assholes, and be on your merry fucking way. It’s that simple.
June 17, 2010 at 1:43 AM
You don’t think you were stupid, you think Polly was wrong to respond with un-graciousness
Yeah, I think it was stupefyingly rude that she responded to, “Have you seen [link]?” by taking melodramatic offense at the obvious secret coded message that she sucks!
The idea that the message “fat is bad” is a tool of multiple oppressions (which typically has very little to do with health) is one that I cannot get most people to even consider when I discuss it with them. As much as I disagree with a lot of posts and comments here, I actually had much higher hopes that the link wouldn’t be received with hostility.
The “you’ve given me no reason to give a flying hippo shit” obviously refers to giving a shit about *Polly*, not your most recent claim that what you were originally expressing was a concern about bringing down the weight loss industry’s predation on women’s misery.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive.
No, on a personal level, I do not like polly. Nevertheless, I think the fact that polly is oppressed as a woman sucks, and I would wave a magic wand to make it vanish if I could. I didn’t know what polly’s personal reasons are for thinking putting on weight is bad. But since, for many women, weight loss is primarily about indoctrinated self-hatred and Kate Harding’s blog is one place to dismantle that, my first thought was to link it in case she found it useful.
It’s a pretty peculiar type of feminism to only be concerned about the oppression of women you like.
Unless, are you really expecting me to believe that your first comment was about weight loss industry/women’s misery in general, and not Polly, and you were ready to stop-caring about something so important to you
Or you could just read for the obvious subtext that I was done trying to seriously engage with someone so clearly determined to see me as an enemy, fullstop.
admit that it was a condescending thing to say
I was aiming for total neutrality with that sentence, and the result is being told what an obvious jackass I was trying to be. Fishy. If I’m the one trying to score Better Than Thou points, why is it that I can’t ever anticipate when other people here will think I’m trying to score them?
June 17, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Oy, bean. Now we’re in the you’ve-been-unfairly-receieved/treated stage? I don’t know if you really feel that way, or if, like Orlando C for one example, you’re another person on this thread who tries to manipulate others’ emotions by playing the sad sack, but either way, I think we’re at an impasse. Which I may or may not be spelling correctly.
And I, for one, don’t wish you ill. I just wish kinksters on this thread who are snotty and condescending towards me and others would do something other than play the victim when they’re confronted about it. (you were, by the way, snotty towards me, when I wasn’t even talking to you, about the lucy-feigning-a-British-accent-online thing, so that’s what I’m referring to.)
Bon voyage and stuff.
June 17, 2010 at 7:04 PM
This post was made in February, 2009. Wtf is this thread still active for?
June 17, 2010 at 9:59 PM
I don’t know, James. Please let us know the next time a thread should never be commented on again though, lest our foolish selves get any big ideas about saying what the fuck we want to on whatever the fuck thread we fucking feel like.
June 18, 2010 at 8:05 AM
James,
Random BDSMers (for lack of a better word) show up and keep rehashing the debate.
June 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM
@James,
A -lot- of 9/2′s posts are like that. She sees fit to publish the commentary; it’s her site and by the way, this is NOT a forum, such as “threads” exist and there are no admins enforcing dead thread rules. Calling dead thread is pretty asinine; I’ve been known to weigh in on older, deader threads. (Yes, deader.)
-Miss Andrist
June 18, 2010 at 12:35 PM
If it weren’t for gravedigging, then the relatively larger number of people who read my site now might never see some of my older posts, so I allow comments on old threads. It may be self-serving in some way, but whatever. It isn’t as if Kink.com no longer exists and this issue needs no more attention.
June 21, 2010 at 11:55 PM
Well if Howard Stern loves Kink.com that much, perhaps he should volunteer his tiny penis and googly eyes for their shoots. Heck, I’d pay to see that twit tortured.
I often tell men to ‘kill themselves’ when they hassle me in the street. I love watching the primal rage shoot out of their stupid cauliflower ears ;) You can actually see the steam! Actually, why do men have such ugly ears? Such ugly everything!!!
As for the founder of this vile venture, he is apparently some British git who reportedly ‘cannot get excited unless a woman is tied up.’ Hmm. It seems to me that we should hogtie him as soon as possible and make sure his sausage never again sees the light…
June 22, 2010 at 6:47 AM
@hecate I fully support your response to street harresment, it is something I suffer from too, as a visible queer person who looks female.
A year back when this thread started, I left a very angry comment, I am less angry now, but the view remains the same, I am still with a partner who suffers from depressionI am still terrified that disease will take him from me, and I think there is a world of difference saying “go die” “go suck on a tailpipe to some abusive arsehole” rather than saying it to someone who is a sexual minority.
June 22, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Thanks cheshire :) Well I think women do actually have to explore their anger more. If they don’t, it will simply turn into its inverted form, which I believe is depression. Even men should explore and question their rage as much as possible. They might understand their motives better, thus potentially sparing us from them actually acting it out.
Speaking of ‘killing oneself,’ I do think that if a man has no purpose on this earth other than harassing females, then that’s just exactly what he should do.
June 22, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Cheshire: paedophiles are a sexual minority. (Well I hope they are). I’d have no problem with telling them to kill themselves.
Clue: *sexual minority* does not automatically equal *good person*.
June 22, 2010 at 5:41 PM
@hacate, yes but my point is that my partner doesn’t harrass women (or anyone) in the street, chances are if you knew him you would have no idea he was kinky.
@polly I wasn’t suggesting it was, I contine to have a “does it cause harm” basis for morally, along these lines. http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-john-c-wright.html
June 22, 2010 at 11:49 PM
And the point that Nine Deuce is making here, cheshire, is that in her opinion it does cause harm. So a member of a sexual minority can also be an abusive arsehole!
Case closed, you’re the one who suggested that sexual minorities, unqualified, shouldn’t be told to kill themselves.
This is what I have dubbed the *big fat gay herring*. It is one of the arguments deployed repetitively by BDSM advocates – to compare themselves to homosexuals as an oppressed minority. I answered it before I went off to crapaholics anonymous (but I’m still not cured apparently) so I’ll just repeat myself.
You’re as bad as people who think homosexuality should be illegal. (well no because it’s not the sex I’m objecting to, people who think homosexuality should be illegal are objecting to something they’re happy for others to do on the basis of the sex of the participants)
Please, please, please for the love of dawg BDSM advocates. ADDRESS the point that is being made. DON’T just trot out the same old shit over and over and over again.
It may be helpful if we set up a site wherein the arguments and standard rebuttals are housed. Then we could just go ‘point 7′, like the prime ministers says ‘I refer the honourable member to my previous answer’ in PMQ’s when someone is just repeating themselves.
Or I could just go back to crapaholics anonymous.
June 28, 2010 at 10:05 PM
All right, I have been off this topic for ages, but I decided to come back and post a little bit more as a result of a happening this weekend.
I am looking at the post directly above mine and looking at the fact that you are saying our sexual minority has carte blanche to be abusive arseholes. The problem I have here is your use of the word Abusive. Abuse is defined as following:
Noun
1. cruel or inhumane treatment
2. a rude expression intended to offend or hurt
3. improper or excessive use
verb
1. treat badly
Firstly, we will start with the Cruel Treatment. This is the only place where I might give you people a little leeway on BDSM. Some of it could be misconstrued as cruel (and even inhumane, i mean come on… scat play!?) However, where it falls apart is that the people receiving the treatment mentioned above, do not consider it inhumane or cruel. They enjoy it. This is the crux of the entire argument. We are not forcing women, men, or in the rare case other to participate. They are willing and desire to act upon these desires and fantasies.
As for a rude expression intended to offend or hurt, this also breaks down, the intent of everything I do during play is for the enjoyment of my partner. If she isn’t it enjoying it, she lets me know and I stop. Immediately. No questions asked; no wheedling; no, “Are you really sure, let me try to convince you otherwise…” If a safe word is used, play time ends without hesitation. You would be surprised just how much control the “victim” in BDSM actually has over the session.
As for the verb form to Abuse a person, it fails to meet the qualifier of treating a person badly when they enjoy it so much.
Here is part of what confuses me. I have seen comments on here from women and men who are in the scene, who tell you how much they enjoy this so called abusive behavior, and rather than believe them… you attempt to invalidate what they know. You call them wrong and confused despite the fact that they are making a choice to participate. I thought feminism, the very ideal, is choice. The choice to do what you want to do. Enjoy what you want to enjoy. You people seem to want to take that right and choice away from them. To say, “Think and act, and choose however you want to, unless one of those thoughts, acts, or choices happens to fall on this list of what we consider wrong.”
As for what transpired this weekend that made me decide to throw up another post. As I was at the PA Renn Faire for their Celtic Fling this weekend, I was sitting at a park bench with two female companions taking a break near the end of the day. I happened to notice a man standing a little ways off, looking for the world as if he was spoiling for a fight. When his wife (or significant other as the case may have been, I did not check for a ring) returned, he immediately started yelling at her in full view of everyone around.
After watching this scene for a minute or two and seeing that it was flirting with become a physical altercation, I did something unheard of in today’s society.
I intervened. I spoke up, and asked what seemed to be the problem. I went on to chastise the man for his behavior and managed to keep it from reaching what would have been an ill conclusion in my mind. I stepped in, to stop a form of abuse.
I am a sexual sadist. And the things I do in the bedroom, are not abuse, not even close to what that man was doing, and was about to do. My “abuse” is enjoyed by my partner, and consensual.
I loath and abhor abusive people, and I would always stand up in public to defend anyone being abused.
How many of you would have done the same I wonder? Or would you have been the rest of the crowd, trying to politely look the other way. After it was done, there was many a handshake and a clap on the shoulder for me. But that wasn’t why I did it. I did it because I was right. And if I thought for one minute that what I did was abuse, I would turn myself in for chemical castration.
Regardless of what you people may think of me, and my sex life, I can look back on last Sunday and know I did a good thing. And if I am what is “wrong with the world” today as many of you oft insist, I would hate to see what “right” is then.
June 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM
Jon,
First of all, the fact that many, or even most, people involved in BDSM enjoy it does not justify it, nor does it automatically mean that it is not abuse. There are abuse victims who enjoy their abuse. It’s actually a fairly common occurrence amongst child sexual abuse victims.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There is only one, ONE, argument in defense of BDSM that holds any water whatsoever. CHOICE. That’s it. Adults have the right to choose what they do with their own bodies in private.
“Regardless of what you people may think of me, and my sex life, I can look back on last Sunday and know I did a good thing.”
Well whoopdefuckingdo. The great big man rescued the little woman from being abused! Obviously, he’s not a bad guy! No! He just can’t be!
Seriously, this is exactly the kind of grandstanding that irritates the shit out of me. Standing up for one woman does not prove that you’re a “good” guy, nor does it indicate that what you do in the bedroom is completely a-ok. There are plenty of men who are complete and total assholes to the women in their lives who will stand in and defend women from abuse at the hands of other men.
June 29, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Firstly, the fact that you posit sexually abused children enjoy the abuse is incorrect. What you are thinking is stockholme syndrome where an abused child will often cleave to their abuser for fear of later retaliation. Where you misconstrued this as enjoyment is beyond me.
This dynamic doesn’t exist in my relationships because there is no fear of retaliation for anything really. If at anytime my partner is not in the mood, I am not going to rape them or harm them in any way. You are right, it is choice that she participates, and I would never violate her right to choose.
As for your dismissal of me doing the right thing, there is no basis what so ever to prove that an abuser would stand up for a person being abused in public. There is however the Bystander Apathy Experiments done in the wake of the Kitty of Genovese rape (where 38 people heard her calling for help and were in full view of the act and none called the police). This showed that 70% of people would do nothing to help a person suffering in public based on the belief that it will be someone else’s problem.
If you can show me a single study proving an abuser will stand up for abused people in public, I would welcome it. Otherwise, as for it just being me “grandstanding” as you call it, it’s an obvious attempt to rationalize what is anathema to you. The idea that a person you perceive as evil can in fact be a good person is hard for your black and white western philosophy leaning to handle.
Rather than ceding the point that a person you dislike on principle can do the right thing, you try to rationalize and invalidate it. However, you didn’t even address the point I made, would you be part of that 70% that ignored it? Or would you be part of the 30% that made an attempt to help?
I am not grandstanding, and I am sorry helping a person “annoys” you.
June 29, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Faith, what bullshit. Children do not fucking enjoy being sexually abused.
Children can experience physical sensation caused by sexual touch, which might be “enjoyable” in that sense. And they can enjoy someone paying attention to them. But they do not enjoy being abused.
It’s profoundly insulting to both sexual abuse victims and adults who like BDSM on every level to suggest otherwise.
June 29, 2010 at 6:21 PM
“Firstly, the fact that you posit sexually abused children enjoy the abuse is incorrect.”
Well, having been a sexually abused child who did find pleasure in the abuse, I absolutely believe I can declare that to be fact. Part of the shame that sexual abuse survivors often feel has to do with the fact that they experienced pleasure with what happened. My pleasure had nothing to do with stockholm syndrome either. It had to do with the fact that what was being done to my body created pleasurable feelings in my body despite the fact that it was abusive.
“The idea that a person you perceive as evil can in fact be a good person is hard for your black and white western philosophy leaning to handle.”
Fuck you. No, seriously. FUCK YOU. Being someone who is actually into BDSM, my viewpoint it not black and white at all. Don’t you dare assume to know what my viewpoint is based on one fucking comment.
“Rather than ceding the point that a person you dislike on principle can do the right thing, you try to rationalize and invalidate it.”
I didn’t say that I disliked you on principle. I said that you doing the right thing didn’t justify your sexual practices. Maybe some reading comprehension is in order.
June 29, 2010 at 6:26 PM
“Faith, what bullshit. Children do not fucking enjoy being sexually abused.”
Well, then I guess my experience and those of other children who were abused and found pleasure in it is completely invalid.
Seriously, don’t tell a former fucking sexual abuse survivor what we did or did not experience. Yes, it is possible for a sexual abuse survivor to experience pleasure at the hands of their abuser. I know. I fucking did. So, yea, I have the same response for you that I have for Jon: Fuck you.
Educate your damn self and get back to me when you have a fucking clue.
June 29, 2010 at 6:49 PM
@bean, and those of us who have been both victims of abuse and are adults involved in bdsm
June 29, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Jon,
I could probably be considered “abusive” in some sense of the word by many people, including a lot of the commenters on this board. I have also stood up for women who were being insulted or harassed.
I have to agree with Faith that this doesn’t count for much. Doing the right thing does not preclude someone from doing the wrong thing. That being said, I would also hesitate to try and define anyone by a single act or practice they engage in. In your case: BDSM.
As long as you respect the rights of others in your private life, and are aware of (and exercise discretion in relation to) the secondary affects that promoting your lifestyle may have on the public at large, I don’t think you should feel too terribly about the fact you enjoy BDSM.
June 29, 2010 at 10:03 PM
Faith,
Did you even bother to read the rest of my comment? Experiencing physical pleasure isn’t the same thing as enjoying the abuse itself. Which, honestly, makes as much sense as being “willing” to be raped.
I’m a survivor too, hence my outrage at you muddying this.
June 30, 2010 at 5:58 AM
‘I thought feminism, the very ideal, is choice. The choice to do what you want to do. Enjoy what you want to enjoy. You people seem to want to take that right and choice away from them. To say, “Think and act, and choose however you want to, unless one of those thoughts, acts, or choices happens to fall on this list of what we consider wrong.”’
Of course…why is that a surprise? Every ideal is going to want to restrict things anathema to it, the only thing abnormal about the various branches of feminism is what they judge to be wrong and why.
June 30, 2010 at 7:24 AM
“Experiencing physical pleasure isn’t the same thing as enjoying the abuse itself.”
Bean,
This is going to be my absolute last comment on this topic. I’m sorry if it outrages you to hear my truth. But I won’t stop saying it because it is my truth. I enjoyed it because at the time I was not aware that what was occurring was actually abuse. All I knew was that it was a person that I trusted and that what he was doing felt good. I even sought out the abuse. And, yes, my experience is not an unusual one for child abuse victims.
So, yes, saying that BDSM can’t be abuse because it’s impossible for victims of abuse to enjoy what is happening is nonsense. The only thing that definitely can be said to differentiate BDSM from abuse is consent, not enjoyment. Hell, the same thing could be said about any sex. The same thing could be said about getting a freaking massage. It isn’t the enjoyment that makes a difference. It’s whether or not the person has given clear and definite consent. Sometimes abuse hurts. Sometimes it doesn’t. That you don’t want to hear this does not make it not true.
June 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Faith,
If it didn’t do you psychological damage, it can hardly be called abuse. If it did, then you didn’t fully enjoy it.
Not a hard distinction to make.
June 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Faith – I knew what you meant (and also have experience with everything you’re talking about), and it’s just so clear, always, that there are perverts who are as compelled to try and find a way to condescend as they are to flog or get flogged. It’s like its own fetish, talking down to people.
I mean seriously, the embarrassing lengths people on this thread have gone to, to try and AHA! anti-kink.com feminist commenters at any turn, only to consistently show their own asses.
Faith, thanks for commenting here in the honest and take-no-shit ways that you have, regardless of the ongoing nonsense of others. I greatly appreciate it.
June 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM
Bean, stop being so patronizing/snarky/whatever.
June 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM
I tried to swear off this thread because it was going nowhere but what Faith said brought me back:
The only thing that definitely can be said to differentiate BDSM from abuse is consent, not enjoyment. Hell, the same thing could be said about any sex. The same thing could be said about getting a freaking massage. It isn’t the enjoyment that makes a difference. It’s whether or not the person has given clear and definite consent.
Yes, absolutely. The argument comes down to whether anyone can ever consent to BDSM with those opposed to BDSM saying that it is not possible (whether based on their own or others’ experiences or theory-based reasoning) while those who are not opposed to BDSM saying that we should listen to the experiences of those who say they do consent. Honestly, I don’t see this ever being resolved because neither side is going to budge. I’m going to stick by my thinking that we shouldn’t label a woman a liar if she says she consents to BDSM sexual practices and others are going to stick by their thinking that no one can consent to abuse and BDSM is clearly abuse (or similar reasoning). I’m going to continue to think that the sexual proscriptivism in telling women what does and does not liberate them in the bedroom is just as patriarchal as patriarchy and others are going to think that such thinking as mine at the least abets if not reinforces patriarchy which uses sexual practices to enforce sexism and worse. I’m going to make snarky comments about being non-consensually dominated by people trying to control my sexual practices and others are going to make snarky comments about… the way I spell things and the words I use? Okay, I don’t quite get that last thing at all. ;) Anyway, I think I have made my point. This is intractable, and the only people who are going to be influenced one way or the other are those who have not been exposed to the arguments before. Thanks, Faith, for distilling this whole thing to the base issue.
June 30, 2010 at 6:51 PM
“If it didn’t do you psychological damage, it can hardly be called abuse.”
Ok, I lied.
Motherfuck you with a great big fucking stick, Bean. Yes, if a grown man engages in sexual activity with and grooms a 5-year-old girl for his own personal pleasure, that’s abuse.
Go jump off a fucking cliff, you shitstain.
June 30, 2010 at 7:05 PM
“Faith, thanks for commenting here in the honest and take-no-shit ways that you have, regardless of the ongoing nonsense of others. I greatly appreciate it.”
Thanks for the kind words, Joan. I’m not sure commenting here has served much purpose but at least it gave me a place to vent.
June 30, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Faith – I don’t, obviously, know what anyone but me feels when reading your comments (and some others’ here), but for me it feels like – I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember, but the original Stepford Wives movie, with Katherine Somebody or other, she was also in The Graduate… Anyway, when she finally met a woman who lived in that neighborhood who wasn’t already Stepford-ed, it was a kind of relief that I don’t know if there’s anything else comparable to that specific phenomenon in life.
Not that this thing is as dramatic as all that (I don’t think kinky people are talking in the other room about how to kill us and replace us with pro-kink robots, for instance), just that…I don’t think you can ever know the impact really of what it’s like to be another person’s source of “oh thank fucking god, I thought it was just me.” It’s intense.
And with your level of candor (sorry, for lucy, candour) and clarity and willingness to speak the fuck up, I highly doubt I’m the only person you’ve had this effect on throughout your life. I don’t know why it mattered so much to me to tell you all that, as my response to seeing all the bean and other dudes’ bullshit on here, but there you go.
June 30, 2010 at 9:59 PM
also, thanks be to god that lucy came back to this thread to explain the whole thing. I admit I couldn’t quite get my little head around the ins and outs of the various sides until lucy came back to break it down.
insincere cyber-winks, in case anyone’s wondering, are the Godiva chocolates of condescending pomposity on the internet. It doesn’t get any better!
June 30, 2010 at 11:59 PM
Sure thing, Joan. I’m always happy to explain things to rape apologists like yourself [NB: Read Joan's recent blog post.]. I figure if you can explain away rape you likely need an explanation for harder subjects like actual consensual sex. And, I don’t think you’re going to kill people like me in the great non-BDSM utopia-to-come but I’ll be glad not to be there where rape is allowed as long as the right people are raped because then it’s not rape-rape or something. Talk about showing one’s ass. Oh, excuse me, arse.
But, honestly, I wasn’t trying to explain the whole thing to you, Joan, because I knew that would be a waste of time. You’re too busy insulting people and generally being awful (I can’t think of anything much more awful than someone who claims to be a feminist engaging in rape apologism of any kind.) to be able to engage in anything else. Thanks for your condescending atrociousness to match my condescending pomposity. You win.
July 1, 2010 at 5:22 AM
Bean, stop being so patronizing/snarky/whatever.
Deuce, WTF? Doing something sexual with a child is abuse because they can’t consent. And they can’t consent because they don’t have the capacity to either fully understand what’s happening or not be damaged by it.
I’m not trying to be “snarky,” I’m finding it fucking disturbing to see someone trying to break down this argument to nothing other than “consent.” The consent argument rests on SOMETHING.
July 1, 2010 at 5:36 AM
@ Lucy – “The argument comes down to whether anyone can ever consent to BDSM with those opposed to BDSM saying that it is not possible (whether based on their own or others’ experiences or theory-based reasoning) while those who are not opposed to BDSM saying that we should listen to the experiences of those who say they do consent.”
Um – sorry, this post is not about whether consent is possible in BDSM and there is general agreement regarding consenting adults’ activities IN PRIVATE.
What the post posits for discussion is the social effects of video footage of women being raped and beaten – i.e., tortured – for the entertainment and sexual gratification of others and ultimately for the financial gain of the owners of kink.com.
Quit derailing or quit posting.
July 1, 2010 at 8:27 AM
“I’m finding it fucking disturbing to see someone trying to break down this argument to nothing other than “consent.” ”
Here’s a thought, Bean:
While I tend to be a pretty intense person, I’m also a person who does her best to not seriously lose her shit. Being told that I either wasn’t abused as a child, or that I’m confused or lying about my experience of it, is one of the things that will make me seriously lose my shit. Yes, Bean, I was sexually abused as a child. Rather than focus on your disgust at learning for the first time (apparently) that child sexual abuse victims can actually enjoy what happens to them because they are too young to understand that it’s wrong and they are too young to understand that sometimes people that are supposed to care about you and that you trust will use that trust against you for their own personal gain while convincing you that what they are doing is perfectly acceptable and a nice thing even, maybe you might want to step back, shut up, and consider that I have been living with that disgust on a personal level for somewhere around a few decades.
This is not about you and your disgust. This is about me and my truth and my experience.
And, yes, knowing what I know about not only my own experience with sexual abuse but also other people’s experience with sexual abuse is why I know that you can’t make this a matter of enjoyment or non-enjoyment in order to define whether or not BDSM is abuse. I mean, if we start doing that, should we also start calling all of the shitty but totally consensual sex that I’ve had in my life abuse? Really? Do you think that would be a great idea? How about the BDSM oriented sex that I engaged in consensually that I didn’t enjoy? Was it abusive for me because I didn’t enjoy it even though I consented to it?
It is perfectly possible for people to have consensual sex that they do not enjoy just as it is possible for people to be abused and find pleasure in that. So, yes, it is the consent that ultimately matters, not the enjoyment or lack thereof.
July 1, 2010 at 8:41 AM
“I don’t know why it mattered so much to me to tell you all that, as my response to seeing all the bean and other dudes’ bullshit on here, but there you go.”
Thanks again. I appreciate your candor and willingness to speak the fuck up too. I also understand what you mean by having one of those “thank god, it’s not just me” moments. I’ve certainly had those too.
July 1, 2010 at 9:28 AM
lizor,
Excuse me? I’m not derailing by opposing what you think, I’m talking about the heart of the issue. The fact that you want it to be about something else does not make it so. As I said to Nine Deuce earlier (with a result of utter silence from her), are you saying that at kink.com women are being literally raped and tortured? So where is the call for the authorities to arrest them? Where is the petition? Where is the information for the police, the prosecutors, the FBI, whoever, so we can contact them and stop this crime? Or, as I suspect given you’re not calling for any of that, is this a rhetorical move? Because you know that the women depicted have consented and that it shows women consenting to activities that approximate those things but aren’t really those things at all. I despise rape, I despise rape apologists (see my previous comment to Joan about her disgusting rape apologism), and I believe we all need to work hard to eliminate rape. However, I also know that what makes rape is the lack of consent. Just because something is made public does not suddenly make it what it is not. The video footage does not depict rape or beatings (in the sense in which you seem to mean it) or torture. For you to claim it does is to misrepresent it (ie, lie).
As to making a profit? I don’t like capitalism. I think it’s a horrible system. But it is the system we have. As others have already pointed out, it seems strange to single out kink.com for criticism of a systemic problem. Besides, this seems a red herring. Would the criticism of kink.com suddenly go away if it suddenly started doing everything with volunteers and donations and access to what it made was free? I don’t think so.
As for it being for the entertainment and gratification of others, yes, you’re dead on. But, honestly, so what? Okay, that’s a bit flip, but really. No, I don’t understand the desire of women to participate in these kinds of sexual activities that involve submitting to men. But I know women who do have these desires, who do like depictions of these desires, and who nonetheless are feminists who oppose sexism and the idea that women are to be used by men without consent or regard for the women. Yes, I admit it hurts my head (in a way that it doesn’t if the desires involve other women instead of men), but if it seems like a paradox then maybe it’s because there is no respect for consent, for the variety of the desires of women, for the fact that part of propping up patriarchy is slut-shaming women for inappropriate desires even when that slut-shaming is done for supposedly feminist ends. As for teh menz, I think it’s better that they see depictions of women who clearly consent than depictions of women whose consent is not shown (and is instead only implied by the legal statement at the beginning of the video). And far better than something like Tucker Max’s film which promoted actual rape, even in its advertising (“Blind girls can’t see you coming”). The alternative proposed is that we pretend that women and men don’t have these consensual desires by making the depiction taboo/illegal/whatever. I don’t see how this is a good thing.
Basically, the whole anti-BDSM, anti-kink.com argument relies, as usual, on notions of purity. That somehow we are corrupting ourselves and others from a pure state where no one wants to do these *awful* things. But the purity argument is flawed because it relies upon there somewhere or somehow existing a world where people do not think or do such things. It fails to deal with reality. BDSM is not rolling up and going away. It is not going to be argued away, and banning it won’t work either. Any arguments about the interaction of patriarchy and BDSM need to take that into account. Those who oppose BDSM refuse to do that and thus aren’t going to succeed in their arguments without forcing others to go along with them. To doing something that women don’t consent to. The irony there is profound.
July 1, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Lizor: Indeed, the topic of ND’s post in 2009 was kink.com. Almost 17 months, and close to 1000 comments later, the conversation has evolved (or devolved depending on your perspective) into the conflict that Lucy so succinctly described. I’m glad that Faith brought the topic up (and it was Faith not Lucy who did so) and don’t find it derailing at all. It speaks to the heart of the matter in my opinion: What exactly constitutes consent? One views a scene on kink.com (to bring us back on topic) that so appalls one’s personal sense of right and wrong that it seems inconceivable that any ond could possibly consent to such treatment. And yet there are those who can and do. Being unable to understand another’s truth does not invalidate it. For (a some what unrealated) example look at Faith and Bean’s most recent misunderstanding. Bean, having a some what similar personal history, but processing it differently, cannot accept Faith’s use of the word “enjoyed” when describing her experience. But that is Faith’s truth.
July 1, 2010 at 12:11 PM
Yes please, feel free to check out my second-to-latest post if you’re of a mind. I even got over my laziness and provided a link to the post I’m referencing, so you can read *that* too, rather than just take my word for it that a buncha bullshit went on:
http://cdm2.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/finally-im-offended-by-something-to-do-with-the-topic-of-sexual-assault-at-feministe/
Though of course this thread here is not about *me* and my blog, either.
lucy, you say rape apologism, I say calling bullshit on appropriating the experiences of rape victims, on top of people thinking they get to decide for someone they don’t even know what his experience was! Go anti-proscriptive feminists!
July 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Also, LOVE the way pro-kink people in this thread have continually tried to get away with deliberately misrepresenting someone’s words because the misrepresentation gives them a bigger square footage from which to grandstand.
It’s not news that part of what is most damaging to a lot of those who experience child sexual abuse is that MUCH of it occurs in ways that traumatize the child by a) physically feeling involuntarily pleasurable via body reflexes that no one can control and b) being perpetrated by adults or older minors who a child loves, and by virtue of psychic survival mechanisms a child tries to re-cast the abuse as loving attention from the perpetrator in the child’s own mind. Thus presenting as an experience of pleasure rather than conscious terror and pain or abuse.
It is horrifying for you, bean, among others, to act like what Faith is talking about is itself harmful to child sexual abuse victims. Whether you’re doing it consciously to be a fucking dick or out of stupefying ignorance because you’ve actually never heard of this phenomenon is irrelevant at this point. You’ve had more than enough chance to familiarize yourself with the fact that Faith isn’t pulling it out of her ass, and you continue to try and cling to some position of moral superiority in *denying her and many others’ experiences* in being sexually abused as children. Including my own, which makes it no surprise that I am doubly pissed at you for doing it.
July 1, 2010 at 5:17 PM
You know what, I do apologize in connection with that Feministe thread, because I didn’t realize “Scott” had come to the thread to confirm that yes, he was indeed raped by his then-girlfriend and –
oh wait, that didn’t actually happen. You know what did, though?
A bunch of fucking bullshit. As already mentioned.
Faith, I saw you at that thread too, and I know we do not agree on that topic. That thread’s been closed for commenting and I don’t want to derail here, and the post at my place is closed to commenting as well, but if you end up feeling like you need/want to talk to me about my take on it, you’re welcome to email me. My email’s on my website on the About page. (And if you’ve no interest, that’s cool too, just putting it out there since it’s something we both feel strongly about and again, it’s not possible to discuss in comments at my place or Feministe).
lucy, calling me tall til the cows come home is not going to make that true either. And you’ve got some motherfucking nerve claiming “triggered-ness” on that thread.
You can call me a rape apologist and a horrible person and a male-baby-killing-cheerleader all you want. It would disgust me to ever be someone you approved of, so your varying reasons for not-approving are irrelevant to me. Anyone who gives your word any weight is not someone I will ever have anything substantial in common with, let alone on the female-emancipation front. So please, continue to spread the word, hopefully it will keep away all the people I wouldn’t want near me in the first fucking place.
July 1, 2010 at 10:52 PM
I think the word you’re probably after ND is ‘mansplaining’.
As in: talking down to the wimmin. And telling them they don’t know their own silly little minds.
Back to crapaholics anonymous for me….
July 1, 2010 at 11:01 PM
Anyway here’s a link, for those who still have problems believing what a woman says about her own experience.
http://www.enotalone.com/article/9956.html
An offender may make the victim feel responsible for the sexual abuse, for the offender’s well-being, and/or for the consequences of disclosure. Victims may also feel guilty for not having stopped the sexual abuse as well as for any positive aspects of the abuse, such as physical pleasure, the special attention given by the offender, or an opportunity to have control over other family members because of “the secret.”
(emphasis added).
July 1, 2010 at 11:14 PM
I have failed, by the way, to notice anyone “calling out” Bean for his child abuse apologism. And suggesting that it’s perfectly ok for an adult to sexually abuse say a 6 month old baby as long as it doesn’t do the baby lasting psychological damage. (which is more than possible actually, think about it).
Funny that. And here was me thinking that it was wrong anyway.
July 2, 2010 at 8:52 AM
“I have failed, by the way, to notice anyone “calling out” Bean for his child abuse apologism”
That was actually part of what I was trying to do with my comment where I told him to jump off a cliff. I was just too livid at his comment to articulate that. When someone makes me so angry that my vision starts to blur, I’m not going to be of much use to anyone.
“Faith, I saw you at that thread too, and I know we do not agree on that topic.”
Np. I read your post too. I see what you are saying and I actually agree with at least part of what you said. But I’m not going to say much more about it here because this is obviously not the place for it. I didn’t read it as rape apologism, however, so no worries there from me whatsoever.
July 2, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Faith, joan, etc.;
I have never once in this thread tried to suggest that children cannot enjoy the physical sensation of sexual abuse, or being paid attention to, or the sense that they are “special” in the eyes of their abuser, or whatever else. In fact, I specifically said they can.
Where anyone missed that, I don’t know.
I just do not think that this qualifies as “enjoying” the abuse itself. That some of this is a defense mechanism underscores the point that it is not enjoyable in the first place, or a defense mechanism would not be necessary.
If people aren’t getting what I’m saying, then I guess they won’t, because I’m out of ways to phrase it.
Also, LOVE the way pro-kink people in this thread have continually tried to get away with deliberately misrepresenting someone’s words because the misrepresentation gives them a bigger square footage from which to grandstand.
And that, joan, is the biggest projection I’ve seen yet on this thread; because I believe you’ve misinterpreted every single post I’ve made to this thread so far.
Even going so far as to repeat what I said below this, and claim I never said it.
July 2, 2010 at 11:03 AM
“I just do not think that this qualifies as “enjoying” the abuse itself. ”
No, Bean, you’re the one not fucking getting it. It wasn’t just the physical sensations that I enjoyed. I enjoyed it -psychologically-. This was not a defense mechanism. It didn’t need to be a defense mechanism because I DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS ABUSE.
Yes, I enjoyed it, Bean. On all levels. DEAL WITH IT.
July 2, 2010 at 1:00 PM
…..okay, so now it sounds like you’re trying to claim you were only ever saying the SAME THING FAITH WAS SAYING, except that really makes it even more puzzling (and fucked up, incidentally) that you went the fuck after her for saying it in the first place. Because Faith is obviously not saying “kids who get sexually abused are having a grand old time!” She’s saying what you now claim to be saying. And that’s all she’s ever said.
Even more precious than assholes twisting words for their own ends so that they can justify trying to GOTCHA somebody and denying that somebody’s experience: said assholes claiming to be woefully misunderstood (“I don’t know how many times I can explain it if you don’t get it by now!!!”) after being confronted on their bullshit.
July 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Apologies, Faith, obviously you did criticise bean. The remark was aimed at all those others getting their panties in a tangle about everything else and ignoring the fact that someone had just said child abuse was ok if the child likes it/isn’t psychologically damaged. And I don’t care if you qualified it later in a hasty display of back pedalling Bean, that was what you said.
July 2, 2010 at 5:03 PM
Also, Faith – thanks for your reply about the other stuff. I respect you so I wouldn’t have been like “oh fuck her” if you *had* seen it as rape apologism, but I’m not worried about anyone feeling that way. If someone I like or respect does come to that conclusion, so be it. And they know where to find me to talk to me about it if they want to.
As far as the ugly void of decency that is lucy, I think I’ve made it clear how I feel about those claims, which incidentally for anyone who’s new around here or new to lucy’s grossness, I don’t even believe lucy feels that way. it’s the same old same old, same as bean here and the “omg you just said victims of child sexual abuse enjoy it!” thing. It’s a misguided (because of my apathy) attempt to indict my character. Because oh dear!, that somebody might think I’m not a good person on the internet because some jackass said so! Where’s Gloria Allred when I need her!
July 2, 2010 at 6:07 PM
polly,
someone had just said child abuse was ok if the child likes it/isn’t psychologically damaged.
I didn’t say it was okay. Abuse is a violation, being violated is damaging. What I said (if it isn’t damaging, it’s not abuse) was only intended as a logical corollary.
There may be a few people who claim that it’s possible for children to be molested without causing psychological damage (generally when it’s a boy being molested by a woman), but I’m skeptical at best that being manipulated or forced into something so developmentally inappropriate is ever not damaging.
joan,
Because Faith is obviously not saying “kids who get sexually abused are having a grand old time!”
Women can be aroused and even orgasm when they’re raped.
Yet if someone came here and said, unqualified, “Women can enjoy being raped,” I bet dollars to donuts that that statement would be considered outrageous. That’s the frame of mind I had when I reacted to Faith’s comment, and I do not think it was unreasonable.
July 2, 2010 at 7:51 PM
ugh, Faith – I feel like maybe I over-stepped in how I was responding to bean’s bullshit, in saying what I said, because from your last comment it’s possible I don’t understand what you’re saying here:
“It wasn’t just the physical sensations that I enjoyed. I enjoyed it -psychologically-. This was not a defense mechanism. It didn’t need to be a defense mechanism because I DIDN’T KNOW IT WAS ABUSE.”
I don’t feel like it contradicts what I thought I was understanding you to say (and still think), but please correct me if I’m wrong – it sounds like what you’re saying is the sexual abuse felt good to you because you didn’t know it was abuse and there are ways that adult predators make it feel good on all levels. I feel like that’s what I was saying too, except my experiences were sometimes things I felt uneasy/scared/unhappy about and so some of the this-feels-good part did feel like a defense mechanism to me. Just doesn’t sound like that was the case for you?
I still don’t think bean’s first response to this that you said:
“There are abuse victims who enjoy their abuse. It’s actually a fairly common occurrence amongst child sexual abuse victims.”
and beans’ subsequent goal-post-moving was anything other than a load of crap. In case anyone doesn’t want to scroll up, this is what bean said, in response to the above quote from Faith:
“Faith, what bullshit. Children do not fucking enjoy being sexually abused.
Children can experience physical sensation caused by sexual touch, which might be “enjoyable” in that sense. And they can enjoy someone paying attention to them. But they do not enjoy being abused.
It’s profoundly insulting to both sexual abuse victims and adults who like BDSM on every level to suggest otherwise.”
And then bean went on to liken what Faith had said – Faith, a child sexual abuse survivor, and a person who bean himself claimed to then be saying the exact fucking same thing as – bean went on to liken it to someone saying rape victims are willing to be raped.
Now that we’re all caught up, I hope bean will go fuck himself and not enjoy it in the least.
July 3, 2010 at 12:41 AM
@joan,
Are you honestly saying that the only time we can say someone was raped is if the person who was raped says it was rape? Because isn’t that basically what you’re (apparently correctly) blasting bean for when it comes to sexual abuse of children? Just because a child may not be aware s/he has been abused does not mean the abuse has not taken place. I think you and Faith, in sharing your experiences, have shown that it clearly has still taken place. More to the point, you must know rape survivors who were, and maybe some still are, uncertain or even disbelieving that they were raped even as they describe what is clearly rape. I know I know such survivors. You also seem to think that every rape must be the same to qualify as rape. That’s clear rape apologism because all rapes are not the same and setting the conditions you do denies rapes that occur are rape. You’re universalising your experience in a way that you get very pissed off about when other people do the same.
And you’ve got some motherfucking nerve claiming “triggered-ness” on that thread.
Excuse me? Please do tell me why it’s nerve to claim being triggered when I am triggered. Please deny my experience. Please explain to me my sexual history and my psychology so that I may understand how I was not actually triggered. I am sure that this will be very helpful to me. Maybe I’ll even write another email to the Feministe people and tell them I was wrong about being triggered and to disregard my first email. /sarcasm
As far as the ugly void of decency that is lucy, I think I’ve made it clear how I feel about those claims, which incidentally for anyone who’s new around here or new to lucy’s grossness, I don’t even believe lucy feels that way.
Calling out rape apologism, telling a man I’m sorry to hear about his wife’s illness = ugly void of decency? I’d rather not be decent like you then. What grossness? And, I do feel that you’re a rape apologist because you are one. I tend to call out rape apologism whenever I see it. Just because you may not have ever seen me do it before, as I also did when Brynn Caffey at Bilerico and some media pundit engaged in rape apologism wrt Roman Polanski a while back, doesn’t mean I don’t. But, obviously believe what you will, fact-free. I’m more concerned that other people might believe your nonsense. I don’t need to indict your character. I just need to point to what you say and maybe contextualise it some. I think you do a rather good job of indicting your own character. (Also, you’re apathetic? Where? You’re always saying “bullshit” and “fuck” and the like everywhere I’ve seen you, words which are not what I associate with apathy. They instead indicate passion, usually anger.)
Bean,
I understand some of what you’re saying and agree people are not getting it but if I’m remembering my mathematical logic correctly (and it’s been a long time, so I may not be), “if it isn’t damaging, it’s not abuse” is not necessarily even logically true, let alone factually true. Take this in the spirit it is intended from someone who generally agrees with you: Stop digging. Apologise and mean it.
July 3, 2010 at 2:06 AM
For people who are having trouble understanding the difference between rape and child sexual abuse:
Child sexual abuse is illegal EVEN if the child ‘wanted’ what happened to happen. Even if they ‘consented’. Even if they were 13 and had already had sex with someone else they’d wanted to have sex with (cf Roman Polanski).
Rape (legally) is sexual assault – specifically certain types of penetration – without consent (legally defined). This definition is needed because otherwise adults would be raping each other all the time. What Polanski did was also rape rape because he drugged a child to have sex with him, so she most certainly did not ‘consent’.
Now we could argue till the cows come home (or go out to get drunk in my case) about the age of consent and coercion and what really consititutes ‘consent’ and whether current rape law is in fact ‘correct’ but that’s the legal definition and the reason for it is that CHILDREN ARE NOT ADULTS. In other words there’s a power differential which is composed of all kinds of things, one of them being the ability to understand what is going on in the case of young children, though maybe not in older children. Older children can indeed ‘consent’ to sex with adults and may actively want it to happen, but it’s still abuse. Even if it’s a fifteen year old having what they perceive as a romantic/sexual relationship with their schoolteacher.
And the reason in the case of older ‘consenting’ children/teenagers for the law to be like that is the power differential. For this reason it is illegal in the country I live in for teachers to have sex with teenagers aged 17 and 18 whom they teach, even though those teenagers could legally have sex with each other. I think that’s a good law.
July 3, 2010 at 2:17 AM
Actually Bean I already said – and on this blog as well – that women can *enjoy* being raped, (in the sense of having an orgasm/becoming aroused) so you are WRONG WRONG WRONG. On this thread….
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2010/01/07/the-esquire-is-a-better-feminist-than-me-this-week/
Ok these studies can be useful, (although this knowledge is not NEW by any means) because it stops the defence in a rape case arguing that because a woman shows physical signs of arousal, such as lubrication she must have consented.
Also a lot of women who are sexually abused/assualted may feel guilty if they experienced being physically aroused during the attack
I think the main problem with the research quoted is that it confuses physical signs/reactions of arousal with desire to have sex. As though the conscious mind and emotions weren’t involved at all in any decision to have sex with someone
Shows how interested you are in the Non BDSM threads though, like the rest of those who don’t read this blog or comment and then mysteriously flock here….
For the rest, see the definitions above!
And can I add to my fiancee Ms Kelly’s sentiment that you should go fuck yourself and not enjoy it one bit. And work on the urge to patronise female people while you’re at it. Have a nice day!
July 3, 2010 at 3:02 AM
And again Bean, if a woman is in a coma, and is raped, she isn’t in any way shape or form psychologically affected by what happened, it’s still rape.
The difference between child abuse and rape is that we decide that people in certain categories (in this case based solely on age) cannot consent to sex with certain other people. Because of the power differentials. It’s a generalisation, but law has to operate on generalisations, because law applies to everybody.
It’s STILL rape if someone really wants to have sex with you but says no for whatever reason (like a religious belief) and you then have sex with them anyway against their expressed wish.
The point being made about and on the feministe thread (which I agree with) is that the power differential between men and women in society is not the same. IE it’s in favour of men (that’s called patriarchy). So if a woman ‘coerces’ a man into sex it doesn’t carry the same implied threat (as Joan pointed out) of violence.
An example of this was given to me by a friend, and she says this has happened to almost every single one of her heterosexual friends. They have been in a house alone with a male who they didn’t want to have sex with who persisted until they ‘consented’ saying he wouldn’t leave until they did. The point being the only reason they ‘consented’ is because the male in question wouldn’t leave them alone and they wanted to pacify them and they are in the same physical space and he refuses to leave. She says that’s rape. Her dad (a lawyer) says it isn’t, and legally speaking – he’s right.
Whilst I agree with the commenters on the feministe thread that the person in question didn’t act in a honourable or moral way, I think that in the situation described (someone overcoming their religious partner’s objection to sex by ‘nagging’) I wouldn’t classify that as rape – legally or morally – whatever the sex of the participants.
They weren’t living together as far as I can see and there was no threat of violence, or any other threat, from either party. I am NOT by the way, saying that women cannot be violent towards men domestically, or that folks can’t experience domestic violence if living apart OR that domestic violence can’t be psychological.
BUT coercion is more than ‘I’ll dump you if you don’t have sex’.
If someone is economically/physically dependent on you in some way, and you say ‘I’ll dump you if you don’t have sex’, that’s coercion, certainly. But if you’re just a student having a romance, a broken heart on its own isn’t coercion.
The point about the feministe article, anyhoo, is that in a patriarchy power imbalances (physical and psychological) tend to be one way in favour of males.
So the point being made about ‘Scott’ is that it was wrong, morally, to pressure, nag etc him into doing something that was against his religion. Even if he really wanted to do it physically. BUT because of the power differentials between males and females his girlfriend could not have ‘pressured’ him in the way she could have if she was his boyfriend and he was female.
That’s kind of the point of feminism folks! At least in this specific bit of the universe. Men and women are not equal in a patriarchy.
July 3, 2010 at 4:17 AM
Can everybody please also think about the difference between ‘willing’ and ‘consenting’. It’s not 100% black and white, (not a lot of things are) but I’d argue that if someone has sex because they want to continue a relationship AND they also want to have sex, (albeit against their religious objections), they are in fact on some level not only ‘consenting’ but ‘willing’.
The point is – and I’ve made this before – nobody NEEDS a relationship by itself. They may want it, but they don’t NEED it. On the other hand, people do NEED money. So if someone is having sex for cash in a capitalist society, and they do stuff they wouldn’t do otherwise, that can indeed be ‘rape’. So IMNSHO any punter who has sex with a person who needs cash who wouldn’t voluntarily touch that person with a ten foot pole but for the need for cash, that punter is paying to rape someone.
Which was I believe Nine Deuce’s point. And as I said before, don’t blame me, I didn’t invent capitalism.
July 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM
“it sounds like what you’re saying is the sexual abuse felt good to you because you didn’t know it was abuse and there are ways that adult predators make it feel good on all levels. I feel like that’s what I was saying too, except my experiences were sometimes things I felt uneasy/scared/unhappy about and so some of the this-feels-good part did feel like a defense mechanism to me. Just doesn’t sound like that was the case for you?”
Yes, that sounds about right. I mean, I think I remember having some fear/uneasiness in the beginning, but I was so young when it actually started that I can’t clearly remember it actually beginning. But it went on for a considerable period of time. By the time it ended I was actually confused and upset about it ending because I had grown so accustomed to it that I didn’t want it to stop. But I can certainly appreciate what you seem to be saying about your experience too and I don’t want to seem like I’m erasing that or saying that all cases are just like mine.
And as disturbing as it is for people to learn that sexual abuse victims sometimes enjoy what is happening, I do believe it’s important for those of us who have had that experience to talk about it so people can understand that while sexual abuse is always wrong, it isn’t always this terribly horrifying, painful experience. It isn’t anywhere near as black and white as all of that.
July 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM
I have to offer praise to jesus again for someone better than all the rest of us coming back to say the exact same thing a few others have said, as if the fact that they are the one saying it has the power of right-ness behind it, whereas all the rest of us were mere ignore-ables. Thank you lucy for straightening bean out where the rest of us failed!
All your self-pretzel-ing will not change the molecular structure of what you are doing and saying. Which is, that you get to erase completely, in your typical high-misogyny fashion, the actual context of that incident. While claiming this superior stance of being the one who gets to tell everyone else what the context was. (“Here, let me contextualize it for you, because you can’t read the linked threads yourselves, poor dears!”)
Meanwhile they can, and those who care to (or are bored at work and enjoy following the many strands of a flamewar just as much as the next guy/girl), will. Much to your disappointment, ultimately, no doubt.
I would love to see where I’ve ever said, and I’d love a time machine to go track down where I’ve ever thought, that all rapes are the same. But since you’re the Pronounce-er-of-All-Others’-Experiences-Whether-They-Like-it-or-Not, I reckon I’ll just have to take your word for it. And accept your stinging rebuke for same!
Really if that’s your reason for calling me a rape apologist, I’m going to go ahead and give you a minute to look around for something else.
I don’t care what your sexual history is, actually, nor do I care that your super transparent and self-serving motives in claiming trigger-ment at that thread are scientifically un-prove-able. Feel free to send Feministe an email about that too, if you like.
And you needn’t worry about ever being the same kind of decent as me, by the way. It’s not even that hard of a level to get to, what with me being sometimes an asshole and all, but yeah, no fear for you in occupying the same decency space as me.
The fact that I love to swear, and that I can’t stand your creepy ass, is a different thing than me caring whether or not someone like you tries to convince other people of this or that negative opinion about me. Call me a rape apologist all you want. Spread it around. I already told you I’m fine with that.
And FYI, I wasn’t “blasting bean” for saying it’s not child sexual abuse unless a person who it was done to says it was child sexual abuse.
I was confronting bean about the fact that his spineless, useless ass tried to AHA! Faith for describing a phenomenon which bean himself later admitted to having awareness of, but which he at first pretended to liken to Faith saying rape victims are willing to be raped. Faith, a person who IS saying she was sexually abused, not a person who ever said she wasn’t being abused. So no, not a parallel example for what you and others did at Feministe, or why. Again, with the pretzel-ing.
July 3, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Faith, thanks for your reply, and I don’t feel at all like you’re trying to say yours is the only experience.
And to clarify something I said at the end of my last comment – in this thread, you (Faith) have never said “what happened to me wasn’t abuse,” even though it sounds like in your younger years you may very well have said that.
But bean wasn’t jumping on childhood-Faith-who-doesn’t-know-what’s-going-on-and-is-feeling-like-she-enjoys-it-at-the-time. bean was being horrible towards a person who experienced child sexual abuse, for talking about it frankly, because bean thought he could get away with pretending to cast Faith’s candor as, oh what’s the word I’m looking for…oh yeah, some kind of rape apologism!
It would be the same as if someone had gone to any thread where I have openly talked about physically feeling pleasure during one rape by a boyfriend, because for my body it was the exact same geography, exact same movement, as every other PIV sex I’d had by that time (it wasn’t like he doused his penis in hot sauce or taped razor blades to it before forcing it in)…if someone had gone to such a thread and then tried to score “see, radscum are bad people!” points off me by accusing me of saying women love being raped, that would be exactly what bean did here to Faith.
In case you missed it.
July 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM
polly,
I read all of Deuce’s posts, but do you seriously expect me to recall every comment?
Anyway, you did not actually say anything as murky as, “women can enjoy being raped,” in your comment. You said, “women can be aroused,” and I wouldn’t disagree with that. It’s the former I object to, not the latter.
And again Bean, if a woman is in a coma, and is raped, she isn’t in any way shape or form psychologically affected by what happened, it’s still rape.
Well, she’s not psychologically affected presuming she never wakes up. Okay, fine. It’s true, I made the assumption of conscious awareness.
The difference between child abuse and rape is that we decide that people in certain categories (in this case based solely on age) cannot consent to sex with certain other people. Because of the power differentials.
Why would “power differentials” even matter if we were not presuming that having a position of power possibly enabled someone to victimize someone else?
Lucy,
I am sorry if Faith thinks that I was saying she wasn’t abused. That wasn’t my point or intention. But she drew a totally unsupportable line between a child’s and an adult’s capacity to “enjoy” a sexual relationship, and I’m not sorry for objecting to that. I think that was a dangerous thing to say.
Besides, I see no point to apologizing to a group of people who will never pay me the same respect. Go back and witness how many times people have asked for apologies from ND and her friends for nasty things that have been said, and how often that’s actually happened.
July 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM
And FYI, I wasn’t “blasting bean” for saying it’s not child sexual abuse unless a person who it was done to says it was child sexual abuse.
Incidentally, I have no idea where someone would get the idea I was saying that. If anyone would like to quote the line where they got that reading from, I’d appreciate it, because that’s out to lunch from where I’m sitting.
July 3, 2010 at 5:01 PM
joan,
Which is, that you get to erase completely, in your typical high-misogyny fashion, the actual context of that incident.
Hahahaha. Pot, kettle. You’re the one with the misogyny when you say that it is the threat of physical force that (somehow) only men can bring that makes rape rape as opposed to some sort of coercive thing that isn’t really rape. But then it allows you to say that only men rape which would be the point, no?
I would love to see where I’ve ever said, and I’d love a time machine to go track down where I’ve ever thought, that all rapes are the same.
I’d say that would be when you were writing your post about how what was described at Feministe wasn’t rape because it wasn’t the same as what had happened to you.
Really if that’s your reason for calling me a rape apologist, I’m going to go ahead and give you a minute to look around for something else.
No, I’m calling you a rape apologist because you set yourself up as the arbiter of rape and declared that a certain type of rape wasn’t really rape. Just like rape apologists always do. “Nobody held a gun to her head and forced her. He just asked her. She chose to have sex with him.” Yeah, never heard that from rape apologists before.
I don’t care what your sexual history is, actually, nor do I care that your super transparent and self-serving motives in claiming trigger-ment at that thread are scientifically un-prove-able.
Then why did you bring them up here? I’m waiting for your explanation of why I claimed to be triggered and wasn’t, of why I wrote an email to the Feministe people about how badly they had screwed up although I wasn’t triggered and hurt. The way you talk you’d think I was some sort of agent or plant to… do some unidentified bad to feminism. Basically, I’m getting tired of your libelling me (by which I mean the general, not legal, sense so you don’t need to be calling Gloria Allred) with bizarre claims cloaked in innuendo and absolutely nothing else. The fact that Nine Deuce allows you to do this is annoying, to say the least, given how she smacks down on anyone she sees who she doesn’t agree with doing the same sort of thing. But I suppose I mostly find it funny because you’re imbuing me with a nice sense of mystery and power that I actually lack.
Call me a rape apologist all you want. Spread it around. I already told you I’m fine with that.
Don’t worry. I am. I find rape apologism disgusting and a very serious thing so I do communicate with others who are opposed to rape and rape apologism when I find people engaging in it. I think rape apologism is something that must always be strongly and loudly opposed given how difficult it is to get rape taken seriously anyway. I’m sure you will explain how this is me being a misogynist or just personally hating on you, but I really don’t care. In encouraging rape through supposedly feminist reasoning you need to be spoken out against, at least enough to counter whatever influence you have, especially if MRAs decide to point to you as feminist justification. Really, I expect people to be able to see your rape apologism fairly easily. I don’t think it takes convincing so much as exposing.
July 4, 2010 at 6:08 AM
Incidentally, I have no idea where someone would get the idea I was saying that. If anyone would like to quote the line where they got that reading from, I’d appreciate it, because that’s out to lunch from where I’m sitting
From the top:
Faith, what bullshit. Children do not fucking enjoy being sexually abused.
Children can experience physical sensation caused by sexual touch, which might be “enjoyable” in that sense. And they can enjoy someone paying attention to them. But they do not enjoy being abused.
It’s profoundly insulting to both sexual abuse victims and adults who like BDSM on every level to suggest otherwise
Next
Faith,
If it didn’t do you psychological damage, it can hardly be called abuse. If it did, then you didn’t fully enjoy it.
Not a hard distinction to make
I thank you.
July 4, 2010 at 6:23 AM
Why would “power differentials” even matter if we were not presuming that having a position of power possibly enabled someone to victimize someone else?
We are presuming that. Which bit of ‘that is the point’ do you not understand?
Anyway, you did not actually say anything as murky as, “women can enjoy being raped,” in your comment. You said, “women can be aroused,” and I wouldn’t disagree with that. It’s the former I object to, not the latter.
Yes but that is because of the DIFFERENCE betwen child abuse and rape. Which I have already explained. Which bit of ‘child abuse and rape are not the same phenomenon’ do you not understand? See above.
But FWIW, if someone really, really wants to have sex with someone, and gets off on it, but they DID NOT CONSENT, it’s still rape.
I am sorry if Faith thinks that I was saying she wasn’t abused. That wasn’t my point or intention. But she drew a totally unsupportable line between a child’s and an adult’s capacity to “enjoy” a sexual relationship, and I’m not sorry for objecting to that. I think that was a dangerous thing to say
No bean. YOU did that. YOU YOU YOU. With the comments I have quoted above. You said that if a child wants abuse to happen, it isn’t abuse.
Faith said the exact bloody opposite.
July 4, 2010 at 6:36 AM
I have to say I think Bean seems to think that we are goldfish, in that we only have a five second memory.
(I am not an animal expert BTW, so I dare say that popular myth isn’t true, before Bean links me to ‘goldish keepers monthly blog’ to disprove my feminine stupidity).
You are right about one thing Bean, I don’t have any respect for you.
July 4, 2010 at 6:54 AM
You know what I find REALLY rape apologist. People who ignore the fact that the HUGE majority of rapes/child abuse are committed by males, and try to pretend that it’s an equal opportunity crime and not a product of patriarchy by constantly bleating on about how ‘not only men rape’.
Reminds me of those MRA’s who have to derail every discussion on domestic violence with ‘but men get beaten up too’.
And it’s true males do get beaten up. Sometimes by female partners. It also the misses the point quite spectacularly.
July 4, 2010 at 7:14 AM
Wow. Just wow.
An Open Letter To Any / All Who Defend, Advocate, Enthuse About, etc on behalf of “BDSM” IN ANY WAY:
I cannot read ANY of the recent comments. I skimmed, and even that was too fucking much of a trigger.
Just typing those four letters – B, D, S, M, in that order – is a fucking struggle for me.
Hearing or reading the word “train” makes me want to kill somebody. Sometimes I don’t even care who. I just want to make somebody pay and I can’t even say it in normal conversation a lot of the time. The words those letters stand for? I can’t even TYPE some of them.
No, I can’t read this shit, couldn’t make myself if I wanted to, and I don’t want to because doing so will fill me with so much pain, terror and murderous rage that I will engage in self-destructive behaviors which are not healthy and I do not deserve.
You don’t get to do that to me. You have been declined. If I could transmute your arguments into bullets, I would take every last one of your convoluted philosophization-o-rama exercises and your anecdotes and your personal experiences and your seemingly infinite supply of sexay stories and your justifications and your rationalizations and your trivializations and all the other oily, greasy little mindfuck games you play – I would take all of them and turn them into bullets. And I would employ said bullets until I felt safe from you, because you are fucking dangerous. You register as a potentially lethal threat to my personage, because you assert that you actively enjoy hurting people and I know your type. You really do enjoy it, because you feel like a worthless shitbag and you can’t stand yourself, so you project your feelings of worthlessness and derive immense satisfaction in punishing whatever unlucky chump drew the short straw for whatever you can’t stand about yourself. You’ll probably cling rigidly to the privileges you enjoy that allow you to employ and get away with this combination of cowardice and arrogance. I can see the future: you’ll do what you’ve been doing. You’ll refuse to permit even the POSSIBILITY that you might be wrong, mainly because you know just how bad it would be if you’re wrong. You can’t be wrong about how I feel if you get to decide what’s the right reaction, which means you’re infalliable, which is why you absolutely can’t be trusted or communicated with.
Srsly. It shouldn’t surprise you that people react by fearing that you’ll try to hurt them after you openly, earnestly admit that you enjoy inflicting pain and enthusiastically advocate why you think it’s okay for you do exactly that, and indicate frighteningly firm faith in your ability to know how it feels to somebody else so you’re not really hurting them when you’re hurting them.
Huh?? The fuck kind of sense does that make?
Fuck deciphering that shit; moving on. My first reaction is to prioritize my own safety and well-being. You might hurt me. You’re a risk.
And that risk is fucking intolerable.
You don’t get to put me (or anybody) in danger of being hurt by you because you think Some People Like It.
Hello, trauma, it’s me again.
Since I don’t have magic powers, so instead, I will skip all your conveniently self-serving dissertations and when I finish this comment I will go do what I do to snap myself out of shock.
Instead, here’s a question for all you advocates:
Just the reminder of the EXISTENCE of this shit is enough to make me want to kill myself. I clearly identify very real harm – is that real enough harm? Or do I actually have to cave and do it, go someplace where you can never hurt me, where I can never be harmed again, before you will admit that SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET HURT is important enough, I am important enough, my life is more valuable than your sexay gratification?
Suffice to say, I refuse to be a fucking martyr, which in a way is too bad, because frankly I think that’s pretty much what it would take to get it through your heads. Either way, I deserve to fight back. I deserve to stick up for myself. I deserve to say no, people who enjoy inflicting pain are fucking monsters and my only priority lies in protecting myself and any other victims of monstrosity from monstrosity. Your sexay gratification is less important than my (our) human dignity.
Like Polly said…
cooperation != consent
endurance != enjoyment
tolerance != preference
acceptance != desire
Consider:
If someone has been taught (trained, conditioned, abused, brainwashed) into associating tolerance for + acceptance of pain and humiliation with a sufficiently valuable reward (attention, affection, approval, praise – ie, the general point of intimate adult relationships), the only thing you have demonstrated is that their endurance for putting up with the shit you dish out is firmly attached to their ability to feel loved by you.
Does that sound healthy? Desirable? Srsly.
Dominance is a behavior combining appropriation of another person’s rightful power, which creates a power imbalance, and the subsequent exertion of that unequal power. The mechanism by its nature always happens at the expense of some other person. Analogy: submission is to dominance as femininity is to masculinity. It exists purely as the binary inverse behavior to successful domination. It’s the coping mechanism / survival strategy of the disempowered who must adapt to their disempowerment. BDSM === gender politics.
That’s how it’s obvious that nobody is “naturally dominant.” You’re left-handed whether you’re alone or not, but you need somebody else around to dominate in order to be dominant; domination is a behavior you engage in as a matter of conscious preference. Left-handedness is a trait; dominance is a behavior. It’s a fucking choice; you choose to disempower, to humiliate, to frighten, to marginalize and mistreat and your success hinges on the inapplicability of fight or flight as meaningful options for the person you’ve cornered, and precious fucking little to do with anything that comes naturally to either of you beyond their instinct to avoid dying.
When you inflict pain of any sort on a “sub,” you’re hurting them. If it would hurt you, it hurts them. Stop and think about how completely retarded it is to insist that pain just “feels different” to somebody else. Don’t redefine “abuse” as “fun” – when you describe abuse, you are deliberately mistreating someone in a manner that inflicts harm. If you’re not mistreating them, you’re not “abusing” them, you’re not hurting them, stupid. But you call it abuse because you know it’s abuse, you know you’re mistreating them and it gets you off that they tolerate it. You know it would hurt and you wouldn’t enjoy it and you do it to them anyway, BECAUSE YOU CAN. Because they let you. Because they cooperate wheb you dodge guilt by self-deluding; odds are most of your “trusting exchange” is actually just them letting you think whatever you want.
Biology pop quiz: what do pretty much all multicellular organisms have in common? Recognition of and aversive responses to fear and pain. Pain and fear exist because to allow creatures to identify shit that should be avoided as dangerous and thus, survive longer. Chew on this – the devastating consequences of merely lacking the ability to distinguish pain as painful. ttp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=1386322 The consequences are as tragic as they are severe and it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to read this and realize that any creature that experiences pain / fear as pleasurable would die. Probably long before they could pass on that trait.
It’s extremely unlikely your partner is that profoundly different from all other Vertebrata, so unless your partner is plankton, your pain-as-pleasure bullshit is an act of willful self-delusion to some degree. They CAN’T actually enjoy pain / fear – they enjoy something else. Thus, their goal is NOT the harm you’re inflicting, but generally the microscopic scraps of the attention you’re paying them, your approval of their reaction or at least avoidance of the consequences of your disapproval, perhaps your affection and / or praise. Otherwise perfectly ordinary relationship-payout stuff is their goal. What you are doing is not in itself pleasurable, you imbeciles. It’s hurtful, painful. The abuse is NOT what they are after – it’s just the only / best / most reliable / etc way to acquire what THEY want and can’t get any other way. PAIN IS THE SIGNAL OF HARM; no psychological relativist acrobatics can change that.
You can test this, if you want. In fact, I dare you. If you have the courage, which I doubt, there’s an easy way to figure out if you’re a monster or not. Just provide that same affection, attention, approval and praise without hurting them – emotionally, physically, sexually or not – just to see how they react. Skip the special rules, the restrictions, the withholding, the reservations, or abusive pain games and serve up some gentleness, some tenderness, some praise and you-time. Assuming they’re not terrified by a jarring change in your behavior, if you get pretty much the same pliant, “submissively” accepting and encouraging response to dishing out the good feelings with or without the bad, that’s compelling evidence that your abuse is exactly that: unwanted, unpleasant, non-mutual, one-way abuse they’re putting up with because you won’t let them feel loved by you any other way.
Furthermore?
BDSM rests upon some dangerously flawed-unto-psychopathic foundational beliefs. For example: the failure to recognize that there’s something fundamentally wrong with changing other people, treating someone else’s personality as negotiable, REGARDLESS OF THEIR EXPRESSED DESIRES OR CONSENT OR WHATEVER THE FUCK. Maintaining and insisting that it’s okay to try alter other people takes a special kind of arrogance that falls between narcissism and full-blown psychopathy. It demonstrates refusal / inability to respect the right of other people to just exist. It indicates belief that you have some sort of authority to reject / alter characteristics you identify as undesirable in others. Well, this may come as a shock, but you are just not so outstandingly awesome, so flawless a specimen, that you get to abrogate the personality of ANY other person.
Psh. Seriously, who the fuck died and made YOU god?
Excuse me, your narcissism is pissing on my boundaries. Stop projecting your feelings of worthlessness and your terror of inferiority and your grossly distorted sense of self onto others and then punishing them for it as a coping mechanism for your feelings of vulnerability, inadequacy and shame. If the only way / the best way / your preferred way to assert yourself and feel strong and powerful and secure is to force someone else into a position of powerlessness, humiliation, and / or inflict and exercise physical, psychological or emotional power over them, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU. Believe it or not, your feelings of insecurity are neither important enough nor so unique that they CAN ONLY be soothed by taking away someone else’s sense of safety, self-sufficiency, competency, or general adequacy.
That’s right, I just told you to grow up.
Because whatever power trip you like to get off on, that’s what you are doing to that other person. Did it ever occur to you that they are simply showing you enjoyment because they know that’s what you want to see, and you’ve brainwashed them to the point where “pleasing Master” happens without room for their actual feelings in the situation? Because you’ve created a situation in which “pleasing Master” is the highest priority and you withhold your affection, attention, approval, and praise unless they comply – where is the room for constructive criticism when you’ve created a situation which amounts to “jesus fuck, dare I risk pissing you off by saying ‘actually no i don’t like it’? because you hurt me so bad my body turns colors when you’re HAPPY with me.” The only thing they can actually trust you do to is hurt them and the only variable is how bad. In creating and enforcing that situation, the likelihood that they will consider the idea that your propensity to tolerate their REAL feedback as a realistic scenario? Probably nil.
It’s especially damning that you openly admit you’re doing this shit to somebody you insist you care about.
And that’s what happens. Stop and consider for a second – what if I’m right? Odds are, if you are doing something to somebody that wouldn’t feel good or would hurt you – emotional or physical – it hurts them too, you’ve just managed to crowd out their honest reactions so completely that the only feelings that are present are yours. You’re looking at them, but all that’s there is a reflection of yourself, your own desires superimposed over theirs (which you will probably never learn about, jackass). That’s right, all you see are your own desires and the way you think this should feel to them. Just you and your unspeakably selfish, miserable, self-loathing fucking self.
Hell, while we’re on the subject of subjugation and sexual politics, check out the correlations:
This is what you see happening in porn. -> the only genre of film where people insist she’s NOT acting.
This is also exactly what happens in prostitution, where -> satisfying Him is quite literally the only important goal you get to have (because the consequences of failure could be severe / permanent / lethal) and his satisfaction is the only way to ensure your own survival, so it happens up to and including at the expense of anyting within yourself that fails to match what he wants reality to be.
Hell, this is exactly what happens when married women have to pretend what their husband is doing feels as good to them as it does to him -> because he’s erstwhile completely blissfully ignorant and oblivious and will never examine his comfortable existing assumptions as long as you let him think whatever he wants, and frankly your chocies are A) invite the inevitable punishment he’ll exact through the nurturing of his precious, fragile ego he’ll require should you endeavor to attempt to excercise actual honesty about that shit and really, that he could assume this shit in the first place doesn’t speak well of his capacity to acknowledge that anybody has individual, unique feelings other than himself over which you will have to pore exhaustively before he MIGHT relinquish the right to introduce your own feelings into the dialogue (and then, his poor poor ego will probably require he dismiss them as You’re Just Feeling It Wrong anyway because he MEANT for you to feel this instead of that.) or B) just let him finish so you can get some fucking sleep.
It happens pretty much any time men interact with women.
When you allow yourself the comfortable, convenient, completely insane belief that pain and humiliation just feel different to your partner? You’re creating that. When you fail to recognize that no, you don’t have any goddamn idea what this feels like to that person, but you can identify what you’re doing as “abuse,” “pain,” “humiliation,” etc, you’re enforcing abrogation of their experience entirely.
And maybe they’re just cooperating because it’s the only way to get any semblance of your affection / attention / approval / praise. Maybe the only reason they do it is because they can’t get those things from you any other way.
Now I’m going to go chill out and fix myself on the inside after wading through this shitpuddle, and I’m going to do it without hurting anybody. Fancy that.
-Miss Andrist
July 4, 2010 at 8:41 AM
“But she drew a totally unsupportable line between a child’s and an adult’s capacity to “enjoy” a sexual relationship, and I’m not sorry for objecting to that. I think that was a dangerous thing to say.”
No. You -think- it’s a totally unsupportable line. There’s a difference. It’s also only a dangerous thing to say if you think there’s a risk that it’s going to suddenly invalidate adult relationships or their enjoyment of them. Which, hey, it doesn’t. Nor did I say such a thing.
“Besides, I see no point to apologizing to a group of people who will never pay me the same respect.”
1) I am not a “group of people”. I am only one person. I am not even one person who particularly identifies as being in the same group of people as ND. I’m not really the type of person who feels the need to really identify with any group of people. Even my identification as a feminist has more to do with an individual label rather than any feeling or need to belong to some group. Apparently this can not be said often enough: feminists are not the borg. If you’re going to hold me accountable for things that other people said and did rather than holding me accountable for what I have done and said, there isn’t going to be any hope of communication. That holds true for you treating any person in such a capacity. You’ve created this idea in your head about who I am and that idea is far from being accurate.
2) I have apologized online multiple times. Hell, I think I’ve said “I’m sorry” a few times in this very thread. And I meant it every time I said it.
3) I don’t particularly care if you apologize or not. If you’re going to behave like such a dick towards me, I’d rather you not address me at all or anything that I say.
July 4, 2010 at 2:29 PM
I’m not sure if I’m agreeing or disagreeing with you here Faith, But what I’m quite certain of (as I’ve already said) is that Bean – with this remark.
If it didn’t do you psychological damage, it can hardly be called abuse. If it did, then you didn’t fully enjoy it.
What you said there – IN SO MANY WORDS – bean is that children CAN consent to sex with adults if they are not ‘psychologically damaged’ by what happens. There is no other way to read that paragraph I can conceive of. You say that abuse a child enjoys and yes, even welcomes, (for whatever reason) is not abuse. And as I’ve already said, just because you then hastily backpedalled, doesn’t mean you didn’t say it. You can’t UNSAY it. It’s there in black and white.
I kind of think we’re saying the same thing maybe though Faith (correct me if I’m wrong)
(It’s interesting by the bypass that people who can quite happily see in certain situations that consent isn’t a black and white issue seem to think there is something magic about BDSM which makes ‘consent’ always a 100% sure fire thing, anyhoo….).
I don’t know if we are interpreting the word ‘line’ differently Faith. I understood bean to be using the word ‘line’ to mean connection. Not ‘distinction’.
The reason I feel strongly about this for anyone who gives a shit, and if you don’t tough, is that for some reason I seem in my life to have run across a number of paedophiles who were eager to tell me that what they did was all right because the children enjoyed it and wanted it to happen! So it kind of raises my hackles when I see Bean saying the exact same thing (albeit retracted when he realised he was in the poo).
I have to make this clear, because I’m really, really really SO FUCKING ANGRY about BDSM’s fetishing and fantasising about child abuse, sorry I meant AGE PLAY. It’s the dirty little secret they never talk about when they’re trying to get public sympathy – all the ‘daddy’ incest fantasies. (But it’s ok, it’s only a role play! Consenting adults fantasising about child abuse, what’s wrong with that? )
To quote BDSM idol Patrick Califia.
“Culturally induced schizophrenia allows parents to make sentimental speeches about the fleeting innocence of childhood and the happiness of years unbroken by carnal lust — and exhaust themselves policing the sex lives of their children. Children are celibate because their parents prevent them from playing with other little kids or adults.”
Charming eh?
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/23/94446.shtml
July 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Oh, and Bean, what Polly said. Especially this part:
“You said that if a child wants abuse to happen, it isn’t abuse.
Faith said the exact bloody opposite.”
July 4, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Well I was happy to learn that I do wield some influence, and I await with baited breath the onslaught of outraged villagers who, once alerted by your astute breakdown of the Great Rape Encouragement of 2010 by yours truly, storm my castle with some…disapproval and influence-revoking.
And as I currently get a) zero comments or trackbacks from male people at all, and haven’t gotten any for quite some time now and b) no emails from males, MRA or friendly, either, in response to my blog, I will know just who made sure the MRA’s knew NOT to point to me as a justification for raping women once they start pointing to me for justification for raping women. Though, being a person who has long associated freely with plenty of misogynist men, I’ve yet to have any of them find me a justification for anything other than notification that I’m a pain in the ass.
But new experiences thrill me, so thank you in advance!
July 4, 2010 at 6:11 PM
@Faith:
Oh, you sillyheaded thing! You’re not a unique individual deserving of general respect and common courtesy. In fact, because you’re a feminist, you’re too generic to qualify even as another human being and you’re completely interchangeable with any other non-male who self-identifies as a “feminist.” (That’s actually a synonym for “wrong,” did you know? Example usage -> “I’m a feminist” == “I’m wrong, plz halp!!”) You shouldn’t be offended because you aren’t supposed to have feelings or really be thinking about something other than your boyfriend. Oh, and if you do, you’re fucking up by not adhering to the expectations this man has for your reaction to his input. Don’t worry your purty lil head, darlin, I’m pretty sure he’ll provide you with a nigh exhaustive clarification of what he MEANT, which as we know is infinitely more important than what you heard, or anything you said. In fact, you should apologize to him for failing to fulfill his expectations of your responses to him, which he’s entitled to among the privileges of being a d00d.
-Miss Andrist
July 4, 2010 at 8:36 PM
“I kind of think we’re saying the same thing maybe though Faith (correct me if I’m wrong)”
Yea, we’re saying the same thing as far as I can tell.
“I’m pretty sure he’ll provide you with a nigh exhaustive clarification of what he MEANT”
I’m sadly sure that you are likely correct.
July 4, 2010 at 8:54 PM
@Miss Andrist
Please look after yourself, you sound like this thread is not healthy for you.
July 5, 2010 at 1:30 AM
polly,
You said that if a child wants abuse to happen, it isn’t abuse.
No, I said children don’t want abuse to happen in the first place.
Since the rape analogy isn’t working, let me just say: no one wants to be violated. And no one enjoys being violated. By definition. And sexual abuse is a violation.
Aspects which are enjoyable to one individual or another are non-essential to what makes sexual abuse a violation.
What you said there – IN SO MANY WORDS – bean is that children CAN consent to sex with adults if they are not ‘psychologically damaged’ by what happens. There is no other way to read that paragraph I can conceive of.
That’s…bizarre.
The idea that anyone would even actually argue that abuse isn’t damaging didn’t once occur to me as I typed that. Evidently, since I didn’t account for the remote possibility that there could be a child out there who has been sexually abused and escaped that experience having suffered no ill effects whatsoever, I’m a child abuse apologist? And I was actually saying that this theoretical child wasn’t abused? Right. Yeah, obviously that’s the only way to interpret my comment.
As I said, I’m extremely skeptical at best that it’s possible for a child to be violated like that, and be totally unaffected. I’ve only ever heard that argued before by NAMBLA activists. That children are affected by being sexually abused, was, I thought, a given.
The reason I feel strongly about this for anyone who gives a shit, and if you don’t tough, is that for some reason I seem in my life to have run across a number of paedophiles who were eager to tell me that what they did was all right because the children enjoyed it and wanted it to happen! So it kind of raises my hackles when I see Bean saying the exact same thing (albeit retracted when he realised he was in the poo).
My god, I wasn’t saying the same thing. My issue is people taking the idea that children enjoy something about their abuse, extending it to, “They enjoyed it completely, no violation occurred. So no damage occurred, therefore it’s okay.”
You’ve seen pedophiles say that; well, I’ve seen journalistic feature articles make that same argument (again, generally in the case of boys abused by women). Not in so many words, but in heavy implication, e.g., “It seems many boys enjoy attentions from older women, and don’t display the signs of distress girls do (according to this one study!). Could it be they aren’t really being abused, and our laws unfairly punish female offenders, blah blah.”
Now, like I said, I’ve mainly seen that argument applied to boys. Which chills me. But there’s no reason it couldn’t also be applied to girls with minimal tweaking. Hence why I think a precise distinction should be made between enjoying abuse on various levels, and the fact that you can’t “enjoy” being violated. “[Person] enjoyed being abused,” doesn’t make that distinction; it obliterates it.
July 5, 2010 at 8:58 AM
“No, I said children don’t want abuse to happen in the first place.”
No, you didn’t. You really fucking didn’t. You quite directly stated that if someone wasn’t psychologically harmed, they weren’t abused. That is exactly what you said.
“That children are affected by being sexually abused, was, I thought, a given.”
Oh for fuck’s sake, Bean. This is really not as complicated as you’re making it out to be. Yes, Bean, as hard as it is for you to hear this: I ENJOYED what happened to me. I didn’t want it to stop even. I, however, never said a fucking thing about how that had an effect on me over the long haul. I never said it didn’t cause me any negative psychological harm in any capacity. I said that harm didn’t occur at the time that it actually happened because at the time that it actually happened I LIKED it. So, yes, I am saying to you right now that it is possible for a person to be violated and enjoy it because I fucking did. It’s called GROOMING. It’s what abusers do to their victims to try to make sure that they like it so that they can convince themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
I am not at all validating sexual abuse by saying this either. Enjoyment does not change the fact that abuse is a violation and is WRONG and sexual abusers are all great big walking shitstains.
How in the hell you turned all of this into me saying sexual abuse victims aren’t damaged because sometimes they like it, I have no fucking idea. I never said a goddamn thing about how it impacted my psychology. Ever. Haven’t said anything about that. All I bloody goddamn said was you can’t establish whether or not sexual activity is abusive simply by whether or not the person takes enjoyment in it. Consent is what is necessary to determine whether or not sexual activity is abusive or not.
“Now, like I said, I’ve mainly seen that argument applied to boys.”
Then you haven’t been paying very close fucking attention then. Because that’s a standard line of argument used against female abuse victims of all ages.
July 5, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Little Ted’s Nursery. Ever heard of it?
Vanessa George sexually assaulted very young children (babies and toddlers) at the nursery where she worked. We don’t know which children and never will. The children, quite probably, have no memory of the event. Their parents don’t know for definite if their child was abused or not . We only know about the crimes at all because George took photographs.
So a victimless crime then? George should go free?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217415/Nursery-worker-Vanessa-George-internet-accomplices-plead-guilty-sexually-assaulting-young-children.html
I’m not interested in your justifications Bean. You know what you said, and so do I. It’s there in black and white, so everyone else can make up their own mind.
You were so bloody desperate, as Joan has already said, to leap on Faith on any pretext, that you unconsciously revealed yourself.
You weren’t ‘accounting for a remote possibility’ (that actually isn’t so remote at all). You were attacking Faith – who had already said that is HER reality – and saying she wasn’t abused.
You – the great respecter of individual freedom and experience! But only if people agree exactly 100% with your take on everything from child abuse to weight loss it seems!
July 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM
quote Bean
The first thing I’d say is that I certainly didn’t choose that kink. I have Foundation it therapeutic, but it’s not like picking a type of therapist out of the phone book
Actually I know about this sort of fantasy with therapeutical benefit for the victim,but what you should and didnt distuinguish is that its the CAUSE and not the JUSTIFICATION for it.
Basically you know why it gets you off but you cannot use the abuse as an excuse for practicing it thats where you got it wrong.
If you think that what your doing plus your rape fantasies are harmless your far from being right. Scientific tests and other shit have proven fantasies and porn do in fact change your sexuallity……
even people who were not pedophiles after viewing enough amounts of child porn had pedophilic inclinations and some went as far as sexually abusing their own child.
Everytime I think of porn and fantasizing this cheesy quote comes to mind that sorta nails what happens;
Your thoughts become words. Your words become actions. Your actions become habits. Your habits become your character.
Oh yeah to the ppl that are a bit surprised by Beans arrogance and quirkiness I think that he is english and if thats the case then I must say that most english try to come over as really eccentric it is like a goal that many aspire oh and most are also extremely patronising.
Stone me now…….yeah I know I am being judgemental but honestly it comes from first hand experience.There are lots of awesome things about the general english way of life but Im not going into it now because Bean has stuck out more as the negative sort.He also prob wont answer anytime soon if ever because the world cup is still on.
July 10, 2010 at 9:50 PM
I just saw the Daily Mail link……makes me ill the Daily Mail is a racist,sexiest,BIASED shit english paper that draws big red circles around celebrity womens cellulite and seems to hate women all in all.
I do lurk around there to balance out the comments even tho most of the time my comments dont make it past the forum censor.Bean posted the link from that paper and somehow I strongly think he is not reading the Daily Mail for the same reasons I do so yeah fuck you Bean and if you are a conservative that voted for Davey boy then triple fuck you.
July 10, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Actually, Alina, I don’t follow sports. I was just ignoring this thread, since I figured my last comment here would either suffice to get my view across or it wouldn’t, but more argument would be pointless.
But I did want to clarify that I don’t vote for the Tories – in my country or (I’m sure) in yours, if your guy is half as bad as Steven Harper. You could club me with my own left arm first.
Charmed you thought I was English though, even if you meant it as an insult. The tourists you send us are sweet.