They’re making it too easy.

7 Feb

An excerpt from a BDSM website describing the “nine levels of submission” (emphasis mine): 

FULL-TIME LIVE IN CONSENSUAL SLAVE. Within no more than a few broad limits/requirements, the slave regards herself/himself as existing solely for the Dom(me)’s pleasure/well being. Slave in turn expects to be regarded as a prized possession. Not much different from the situation of the traditional housewife, except that within the S/M world the slave’s position is more likely to be fully consensual, especially of the slave is male. Within the S/M world, a full time “slave” arrangement is entered into with an explicit awareness of the magnitude carefully, with more awareness of the magnitude of power that is being given up, and hence is usually entered into much more carefully, with more awareness of the possible dangers, and with much clearer and more specific agreements than usually precede the traditional marriage.

CONSENSUAL TOTAL SLAVE WITH NO LIMITS. A common fantasy ideal which probably doesn’t exist in real life (except in authoritarian religious cults and other situations where the “consent” is induced by brainwashing and/or social or economic pressures, and hence isn’t fully consensual). A few S/M purists will insist that you aren’t really a slave unless you’re willing to do absolutely anything for your Dom(me), with no limits at all. 

Bookmark and Share

Subscribe

72 Responses to “They’re making it too easy.”

  1. Caitlin February 7, 2009 at 7:17 AM #

    On the same site, under “humour”: If You make your vacation destination decisions based on that area’s Assault and Battery, Consent, and Sexual Deviance laws, you may be a dominant.

    It speaks for itself.

  2. bonobobabe February 7, 2009 at 2:45 PM #

    I don’t understand how someone could want to be a slave. I really don’t. I am not married nor cohabitating expressly because when I am alone with my thoughts or if I am engaged in an enjoyable hobby, I don’t want someone saying, “Hey, where are the extra rolls of toilet paper?” “Can you pick up my suit at the dry cleaners on your way home?” And I really don’t want someone ordering me around in a more obvious way than a husband would.

  3. Laurelin February 7, 2009 at 5:05 PM #

    One of the defences often given for BDSM is that it is harmless fantasy. A live-in slave is not a fantasy- it doesn’t get much more real than that! How fucking sick.

  4. thebewilderness February 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM #

    I realize that there is a tendency for language to shift over time and words are re-purposed to mean different things, but in a world where people are bought and sold every day one has to have their head pretty far up their ass to be able to contemplate “consensual slavery”.

  5. Polly Styrene February 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM #

    OMG Pat Califia. To be facetious (sorry) this stuff also just serves to prove my assertion that BDSM has more rules than the average suburban golf club.

  6. Polly Styrene February 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM #

    Ps I suggest you take at look at the Uk slave register Nine Deuce.

  7. stormy February 8, 2009 at 8:03 PM #

    The last few posts in your series have been excellent 9-2.

    You sum it up in the title to this post.

    Could it get any more sleeze or condradictory? Oh, it’s about consent, but nah, real slaves give up their consent (or consent in perpetuity). Then of course we have the artificial “proper bdsm” vs “whoopsies, accidents do happen / not proper bdsm”. And they take themselves so seriously (what, in those outfits?).

    Anyone who revolves their whole lives around their sex lives obviously has not grown out of puberty. Teens are the only ones who obsess and talk about their exploits as much as the bdsm crowd. It’s not a kink. It’s arrested development.

    It is also an arena whereby predators can prey on the vulnerable. By far most of the doms are male and subs are female. To tout the female dominatrix as equal numbers is not only a red herring, it is false. And the so-called “topping from the bottom” is pure shite. It’s called a lure. How many (women) sign up to be “slaves” and find they can’t actually get out of “the arrangement”?

  8. Meta February 8, 2009 at 9:37 PM #

    If you want to know how anyone would want to be a slave, I suggest asking one (like me). It’s not about doing housework (which I do very little of, even for myself). It’s about doing something that I find enjoyable and fulfilling. It may not make sense to you, but it’s what makes me happy. It’s insulting to be called “sick” based on my sexual preferences. And, yes, there are a lot of rules, but each BDSM relationship is based on its own set of rules, much like a “normal” relationship has its own set of norms. I also think that there is a HUGE difference between me **choosing** submission and for other people to have imposed slavery on others throughout history.

  9. delphyne February 8, 2009 at 10:44 PM #

    One of the slaves that 9-2 linked to seemed to spend her life getting raped, choked, cut, beaten and rendered unconscious by her partner. Forced domestic chores pale into comparison with that.

  10. delphyne February 8, 2009 at 10:51 PM #

    I’ve been reading a few submissive blogs Meta after 9-2 linked to them, and on-line at least, you sound like the noughties version of 1950s housewives. Your lives seem to completely revolve around your men, always worrying how to please them and completely deferring to their judgement. OK it’s modernised slightly BDSM stylee but there doesn’t appear to be that much of a difference in the mindset.

  11. Meta February 8, 2009 at 11:36 PM #

    I can’t speak for all subs, but my life does not revolve around my man. Yes, he’s a very big part of my life, but that’s because I want him to be, and it’s no more than any other boyfriend would be. I spend much of my time and energy on law school, developing my own career. My family and friends are also very important to me, and I spend a lot of time with them and have very strong relationships with them. These things aren’t obvious on my blog, because my blog is focused on my submission, and these are outside of that.

    I should also clarify that I do not live with my Master/boyfriend, which distinguishes me from some of the live-in slaves at least in one aspect. I don’t think that our relationships are really that different, though.

    I worry about how to please my Master/boyfriend, because I get pleasure out of pleasing him. I don’t mean this the way a brainwashed 1950s housewife enjoys making her husband comfortable. I generally don’t do housework, and I am a terrible cook. It’s incredibly difficult, for me at least, to explain how it’s possible that I get pleasure out of his pleasure to someone who is not also drawn to BDSM, but it revolves around the very deep emotional connection that we have. The pleasure I get out of serving him is both physical and emotional. For example, when I orgasm “for” him, it’s a much more powerful orgasm than if I orgasmed for myself. Also, I get to “share” in his orgasms, so essentially we both get twice as much pleasure out of sex.

    Of course, the physical aspect is only part of it. I’d also like to point out that this is not a one-way thing in terms of the emotional aspect. I have gotten so much out of this relationship. I’ve grown as a person, become more confident, and have learned much about myself. My boyfriend provides an incredible amount of support, and spends more time on our relationship than many other boyfriends would.

    As for deferring to his judgment… We discuss everything, and I’m allowed and expected to question him when I think something’s wrong. That being said, I’m often indecisive, so it’s nice to have someone else choose. But more than that, this relationship is heavily based on trust, which is often expressed in that deference.

    There’s a huge difference in the mindset between me and a ’50s housewife. I’m doing this because this is what I want, not because society tell me to. (If anything, society is telling me NOT to do this.) I don’t feel trapped, I feel fulfilled. I’m not going through a Feminine Mystique type of crisis.

  12. Nic February 8, 2009 at 11:36 PM #

    The reasons there are so many rules in the BDSM community aren’t because they like formality, or because its a turn on. The rules are there to keep the submissive safe, whether they are male or female.

    “Your lives seem to completely revolve around your men, always worrying how to please them and completely deferring to their judgement.”

    And many peoples lives revolve completely around their jobs. Or an ideology. Or drugs, or sex, or finding the perfect coffee. This is the life we live in, in our modern western world. We get to choose what we want our lives to revolve around. By the way, I am Metas master, and as much as her life “revolves” around me, she has a loving family which is extremely important to her, and is in graduate school and has her own career. Part of why shes allowed me to have this power over her is because she knows I would never make/ask her to give up either.

  13. thebewilderness February 9, 2009 at 12:22 AM #

    I think there is a great deal to be said for the illusion of controlled violence in a patriarchal culture.
    I’ve been reading “Right Wing Women”, and the dominance/submission paradigm has just as many rules to create the illusion of safety as BDSM seems to.

  14. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 12:27 AM #

    How old are you Nic as a matter of interest?

    “The pleasure I get out of serving him is both physical and emotional. For example, when I orgasm “for” him, it’s a much more powerful orgasm than if I orgasmed for myself.”

    Meta, like I said it’s 1950s housewifery gussied up in a sexee noughtees version. Seriously this is exactly the same attitude as they had except you’re talking about being made happy orgasming for him rather than being made happy ironing his shirts or cooking him a meal. 1950s men were the masters in their households too. It’s so retrograde it’s unbelievable.

    And society does tell you that you should do this. Female submission to men has never gone out of fashion in the patriarchy, it just happens in leather with whips and sex toys now, rather than starched petticoats and hair-rollers. You’re part of the backlash whether you realise it or not. Women as a class haven’t achieved equality or freedom in any sphere of life, yet you’re happy to give up your power to some pipsqueak who likes to take his “stress” out on you (read that on your blog).

    (He probably wants you to keep your career so the money keeps coming in).

  15. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 12:34 AM #

    Fulfillment was what all 1950s housewives aimed for too by the way. Gotta get the Wickedary out for this one:

    “Full-fillment n.

    1 : The saddest of the plastic passions: therapeutized perversion of the passion of joy
    2: condition of women as vessels/vassals, as containers/carriers of plastic passions, ideas, self-images, and other waste products of junkocracy.”

  16. Meta February 9, 2009 at 12:39 AM #

    I don’t support him financially, so my career has nothing to do with him.

    I enjoy the way he takes out his stress on me. You obviously missed that while you were looking for insults to throw at me on my blog.

    I do not submit to anyone in any other context. I am not part of a backlash. I am also a feminist, whether you believe it or not.

    What’s so retrograde is that you are trying to tell me what I want and why I want it. That’s just as paternalistic as a patriarchal society.

    I have tried to enlighten the “feminists” on this blog, but I now realize that it’s not worth it. You’re not interested in actually listening to me, just in trying to convince me that I’m brainwashed. I may post about this on my own blog at some point, but I’m through wasting my time here, particularly if all I’m getting in return are insults.

  17. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 12:48 AM #

    Eh, I’m not telling you what you want. I’m sure you do want it. Who am I to argue with that? Plenty of 1950s housewives wanted to be submissive to their husbands too and were very loud about it indeed, particularly when they became 1960s housewives and the women’s movement started. I’m just saying that BDSM is anti-feminist, anti-woman and retrogade.

    I listened to you, I just didn’t agree with your analysis. Two different things.

  18. Nic February 9, 2009 at 12:54 AM #

    “How old are you Nic as a matter of interest?”

    Old enough.

    “Meta, like I said it’s 1950s housewifery gussied up in a sexee noughtees version. Seriously this is exactly the same attitude as they had except you’re talking about being made happy orgasming for him rather than being made happy ironing his shirts or cooking him a meal. 1950s men were the masters in their households too. It’s so retrograde it’s unbelievable.”

    The difference is that Meta chose what she wanted, without society pressuring her into it. It has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with our individual personal preferences.

    “And society does tell you that you should do this. Female submission to men has never gone out of fashion in the patriarchy, it just happens in leather with whips and sex toys now, rather than starched petticoats and hair-rollers.”

    Really? Society tells Meta to do what she does? Then how come she keeps it a secret? How come its unacceptable to say that one likes BDSM in public? Please explain this fascinating dichotomy that society is simultaneously telling Meta to do something and shaming her for doing that at the same time.

    “You’re part of the backlash whether you realise it or not. Women as a class haven’t achieved equality or freedom in any sphere of life, yet you’re happy to give up your power to some pipsqueak who likes to take his “stress” out on you (read that on your blog).”

    Kindly save the pyschobabble for someone else. What women as a class have achieved is different from what Meta as an individual has achieved.

    “(He probably wants you to keep your career so the money keeps coming in).”

    Actually I could easily make $200k+ a year in a year or so after I graduate from school. However, I’m going to pass that up to make shit wages so I can work for an organization fighting for human rights, and equality. I would much rather Meta change career paths and choose human rights work over what she wants to do. But I don’t just make her do whatever I want.

  19. Claris February 9, 2009 at 1:24 AM #

    Well let’s face it Meta sounds – dead.

    • Nine Deuce February 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM #

      Claris – I think that’s a bit over the line. I or you or anyone else might disagree with Meta’s interpretation of feminism and how it relates to BDSM, but that rubs me the wrong way.

  20. RenegadeEvolution February 9, 2009 at 2:16 AM #

    Claris: That’s absolutely charming of you, really. Sorry ND, avoided darkening your door, but come on…

  21. bonobobabe February 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM #

    By the way, I am Metas master, and as much as her life “revolves” around me, she has a loving family which is extremely important to her, and is in graduate school and has her own career. Part of why shes allowed me to have this power over her is because she knows I would never make/ask her to give up either.

    The 64,000 dollar question, nic, would be, why in the hell would you want to be someone’s “master?”

    • Nine Deuce February 9, 2009 at 4:32 AM #

      Amen to that shit, bonobobabe (both comments).

  22. bonobobabe February 9, 2009 at 4:09 AM #

    The difference is that Meta chose what she wanted, without society pressuring her into it.

    You know what? I’m so fucking sick and tired of “choice” and “consent” being used as fucking get-out-of-jail free cards.

    • Jon February 27, 2009 at 6:36 PM #

      So there should be no choice in our lives and no consent to do the things we want in the way we want? Sounds a little patriarchal and controlling.

  23. Lillie February 9, 2009 at 6:12 PM #

    Please explain this fascinating dichotomy that society is simultaneously telling Meta to do something and shaming her for doing that at the same time.

    Honey, if you’d ever been a young girl going through puberty and starting to have sexual feelings, or simply flicked through a women’s magazine wondering why an ad tells you to eat yummy chocolate when the article on the following page tells you to start a new diet regimen right now, you probably wouldn’t find the dichotomy so ‘fascinating’. Just same old, same old.

  24. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 7:08 PM #

    Eh, maybe I’m going to get written up by the radical feminist ideology on this one, but Meta’s relationship doesn’t sound that bad. I mean, from the outside perspective, it’s not too different from a functioning 50′s housewife relationship. Sure, it’s not feminist, obviously, but I don’t think that it’s quite as retrograde as some have postulated.

    All I’m saying is that her choices are not feminist, and neither are her “master’s”. But the truth is, not a lot of choices that women make in their daily lives are feminist. The way she describes her relationship doesn’t sound like the get-out-of-town crisis that I think some are overreacting to. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t choose or stay in a relationship like that, but the dynamics in her relationship really aren’t so different from the normal heterosexual bullshit.

    The problem mainly lies in the idea of consent. I mean, what the heck is consent, and how can someone consent to a relationship that seems to be predicated on non-consent? But that’s not a new dynamic at all. Through a feminist perspective, I know that the pull of the traditional femininity, that we can call “consensual” even though it is pressured by society, is something that not even the most strident feminist can deny. We were all born into a culture that socializes gender roles, and I really doubt that any of us are ever going to be completely successful in throwing them off, let alone identifying what part of our individuality is a construct.

    I don’t like the dynamic in Meta’s relationship, but it doesn’t immediately strike me as all that rare or fantastic. All I can say is that I hope if Meta ever changes her mind to anything that happens in the relationship, or the entire relationship itself, that her boyfriend is a decent enough human being to respect that decision and stop immediately or let her go. Not even in the “normal” heterosexual relationships is that kind of respect for autonomy commonplace. While BDSM does seem to enable truly abusive sadistic fucks, I want to remain optimistic and say that the whole-sale demonizing of a BDSM relationship is inappropriate if it is as “consensual” as consent can get in this screwed-up culture, it does not justify grievous harms, children are not brought into the mix, and there is a easy route out for either participant if they feel like they need it.

    Because BDSM relationships usually do not feature these things, I still think that a critical look at the dynamics that help them flourish is needed. However, I don’t think it’s approperiate to infantilize the submissives or characterize the dominants as monsters as soon as they identify themselves as such. While their choices are not feminist in the slightest, there’s a fine line between “normal” fucked-up and “kill it with fire” fuck-up. If we conflate all BDSM relationships with the second category we’re running the risk of having our analysis be unsubtle and reactionary rather than critical and exploratory.

    • male slave May 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM #

      “Because BDSM relationships usually do not feature these things, I still think that a critical look at the dynamics that help them flourish is needed.”

      The unproven claim that “BDSM relationships usually do not feature these things” aside — absolutely. All of the critiques of this series so far have focused on the real and imagined worst case scenarios, so of course anti-bdsmers are freaked out and bdsmers are offended. There hasn’t been a critique of the dynamics that enable two average people to enjoy a healthy and flourishing D/s relationship. Just lots of hype, disgust and misunderstanding.

  25. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 7:33 PM #

    “it’s not too different from a functioning 50’s housewife relationship”

    I don’t understand what you are disagreeing with, that’s exactly what I said. I guess it’s just a matter of opinion whether you think women returning to 1950s power dynamics with their male partners is a good thing or a bad thing.

    It’s also worth noting that someone called Meta (I assume it’s the same person) was all over Kitten’s blog cheering her on as she described being choked unconscious, beaten and humiliated by her partner. Maybe you should talk to her about being unsubtle and reactionary.

  26. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM #

    I didn’t say that I approve of the internal fueling of disgusting behaviors in BDSM by the practitioners. All I’m saying is that Meta’s relationship is more tragic than monstrous, not because of how different it is, but because of how similar it is to the normal heterosexual bullshit. Normal heterosexual vanilla men egg each other on to coerce their girlfriends into anal sex. I really don’t see how that is all that different. It’s all on the same continuum of “fucked-up”. I’m saying that being able to tease out what is non-feminist behavior from what is truly abhorrent is a delicate process. So while Meta’s relationship definitely falls into the first category, and perhaps her glorification of men abusing women falls into the second, it’s too simple to put all BDSM into the second category. We ought to take a closer look at it, but I’m not comfortable just writing off the entire thing.

    Maybe this is just me, but I see very clearly how some of the delusions I once held about sex would very easily lead down a path where I found chocking someone or someone chocking me to be really sexy. That I don’t find that hot attests to how much feminism helped me. But I simply can’t turn around and call the people who do find it hot monsters, because that monster is a part of me too.

  27. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM #

    I never said it was monstrous. If you’re going to address what I’ve said, could you actually address what I said? I said it was retrograde which it is.

    Of course it’s like all the other heterosexual bullshit. We live under male supremacy where it is men’s and women’s job to behave in exactly the way Meta and her “master” (are you seriously arguing a man expecting to be called “master” by a woman isn’t retrograde by the way?) or Kitten and the man who abuses her behave to a greater or lesser extent.

    Hey you stay optimistic though, Kitten will still be being choked unconscious whilst you are doing that though.

    By the way, could you stop doing the “we” stuff when it comes to commenting on what I’ve said. “We” don’t need to do anything. You feel free to do what you want, and I’ll do what I want.

    • Nine Deuce February 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM #

      Whoah, Jenn and delphyne. You guys are more on the same side than you might realize, so I don’t think it needs to get hostile.

  28. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 8:22 PM #

    I guess I got the tone that you thought it was monstrous. If that’s not what you meant, I apologize for my misinterpretation.

    And I’m definitely not legitimizing the heinous abuses enabled by BDSM. I just don’t think it’s fair to assume that all BDSM involves the same abuse, but it is fair to realize that a lot of it does. Thus, is a worthy goal to critically examine it.

    “We” is just a rhetorical device that I use without thinking as a product of my undergraduate discipline of philosophy. I’m sorry if it rubbed you the wrong way, I wasn’t trying to infantilize your argument.

  29. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM #

    I don’t think Jenn and I are on the same side, ND.

    • Nine Deuce February 9, 2009 at 8:41 PM #

      I do. I think she’s using her past personal experiences to try to understand submissive women, not excuse the abuses inherent in BDSM. I don’t know that I agree with her that there are kinds of BDSM that would exist in a post-patriarchal society (if that is indeed what she’s saying, which I’m not sure it is), but Jenn’s a very outspoken anti-porn radical feminist. Check out her blog.

  30. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 9:09 PM #

    What I’m saying is that I don’t know that if what is considered sadism would be an optional part of human sexuality in a post-patriarchal society. If it does exist, I think it wouldn’t be anything like the BDSM we have here. My point is less about how BDSM would be in my ideal world is more about how it is now. And how it is now is not so incredibly different from what is considered “normal” sexuality, or even how sex was constructed in the dominant culture.

    I thought that you were fire-walling “good sex” from “BDSM”, which I think is incorrect. I don’t know what post-patriarchal sex would be like, and I’m 100% certain that part of how I express my sexuality is very retrograde and that there really isn’t much I can do about this other than try to find those threads of patriarchy and excise them from my life. But this is a daunting task that I think will never be completely accomplished as long as patriarchal structures thrive. I am very vulnerable to how social norms formed my idea of sex. I can reject them, but I cannot pretend that there will ever be a time that they do not apply to me and affect the way I see the world.

    Thus, I reacted to what I thought was a tendency of some of the posters here to completely alienate themselves from the patriarchal norms inherent in BDSM. I don’t think that this is approperiate, given that we all foster some sort of social indoctrination. We’re not so lucky as to be feral children, after all.

    What I’m saying is that it is tempting to fire-wall BDSM, but doing so removes our analysis of “normal” culture and even a self-reflective look at how we construct our own sexualities. At least to me, the most important part of radical feminism is the examination of the self. So when I read stories of women being abused I think “that could have been me” because I know that it wasn’t so very long ago that I would have “consented” to such things without a shred of self-awareness of exactly what I was doing.

    If that is not what you were doing, and you weren’t fire-walling BDSM off from a larger analysis of patriarchal norms—even those indoctrinated in ourselves—, then I apologize for mischaracterizing your argument.

    • Nine Deuce February 9, 2009 at 9:17 PM #

      I said in the 4th BDSM post that no sexual practice gets a free pass, but that BDSM raises some special alarms.

  31. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 10:45 PM #

    That was addressed to delphyne, I assumed that was what you were doing, Nine Deuce, after I read the posts.

  32. delphyne February 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM #

    “I thought that you were fire-walling “good sex” from “BDSM”, which I think is incorrect.”

    I’m a radical feminist, I wouldn’t even think in terms of “good sex”. All sex is difficult within the male supremacy, however there certainly might be “worse sex” and I think BDSM sex where women are getting beaten or tortured would come under that heading.

    So I’m not really sure how you could have got that impression from my posts, but thanks for the apology. I am still quite worried though that you would defend relationships like Meta and Nic’s where the man beats the woman, just because the assault is consensual. That’s why I said to ND that we aren’t really on the same side even if it turns out that we agree about pornography.

  33. Jenn February 9, 2009 at 11:41 PM #

    I’m not defending it, I’m just saying that it really can’t be considered on any sort of linear continuum because I don’t even have a concrete idea of what the two extremes look like. Every day, I’m surprised by the level of sadism human beings can justify and as I find more and more of the things that I held up as an ideal are hollow or rare.

    Her relationship? Yeah, it’s pretty messed up. A ton of my past relationships were really messed up too. I never justified abusing others though, so that’s pretty indefensible. But I think it’s important to understand why she enters into such relationships and calls them “consensual”. I also want to know how her dom justifies his behavior. It’s hard—at least for me—to do that without at least finding common threads in their justifications to things I’ve done or said in the past. I’m trying to put a human face on this shit, yo.

    I mean, it intensely horrifies me that people do this kind of garbage, but it more so disgusts me that people legitimize beating the tar out of other people because they get a boner.

    I’m not saying that their relationship is hunky-dory. Obviously, it’s not. What I’m saying is that I’m trying to tease out exactly what the fuck she means by “consensual”, what any of the BDSM people mean by “consensual”, so I can form some sort of philosophical position on what exactly consent is constructed to be, and how it ought to be (because obviously there’s some big disconnect).

    I’m getting the thought from this series of Nine-Deuce’s that the more fucked up human activity is, the more bullshit we pack into the definition of “consent”. Which is why I want to know what the hell I’m lambasting before I pop a blood vessel and add my condemnation. Because I’m pretty much of the opinion that beating the shit out of people for fun isn’t all that awesome. I just want to figure out what exactly is making people call it “consent” without the rest of the world doing a collective “what the fuck”, and especially why I don’t think it’s too bizarre either. Obviously some part of my socially-influenced idea of sex is pretty messed up.

    I’m just saying that I need a tighter grasp on what this BDSM crap is all about, and especially how “consent” is defined to be a culpability-blocker, before I can form a proper moral outrage that is directed at something concrete. My meta-opinion of this thread is that there is a lot of indirected outrage and talking over people’s heads. I really kind of want to know what the hell is going on with people who actually practice BDSM before I alienate them with my opinion. Because, honestly, at this point, I don’t know what part of the BDSM is the thing that really bothers me, or why it bothers me, or why in god’s name nothing really strikes me as all that more heinous than normal every day “vanilla” heterosexual bullshit posturing around the world.

  34. subversive_sub February 10, 2009 at 1:13 AM #

    What most kinky folks mean when we argue the consent line is that what *looks* like abuse isn’t really abuse, what *looks* like rape really isn’t rape; it means that the person who looks like he or she is being tortured actually has placed him or herself in that position (via negotiation, another important BDSM term) and has decided to remain there (consent). It’s sort of a first line of defense for a lot of kinky people who find their sexuality under attack: “This isn’t abuse; I consent to this. I can always opt out if I want.”

    Personally, I feel like “but it’s consensual, so it’s okay” is really not a valid argument; or rather, it’s overly simplistic. (What the hell kind of relationship is it if you’re merely “consenting” to sex?) Consent is just a *piece* of any healthy relationship (kinky or not), which also has to include things like communication, love, mutual respect, awareness of past experience and how that shapes us, and the possibility of autonomy. I’d argue that it’s crucial that both parties are aware enough to know the difference between a choice made out of pressure or manipulation and a choice made out of self-awareness and in fulfillment of one’s own desires.

    Sure — there are people who enter into master-slave relationships who don’t really think about it, who are obsessed with a fantasy world and over-romanticize Master and start capitalizing pronouns when talking about Him and His greatness — or Her and Her greatness. There are subs who honestly believe they’re much better off just letting another person make decisions for them. (Sort of reminds me of electoral democracy, but that’s just my snarky anarchist side talking…) And it annoys and seriously disturbs a lot of the rest of us kinky folk.

    But here’s the thing: most of the worst of that world is on the Internet. And most of it that occurs offline doesn’t actually last that long, because people figure out pretty quick that fantasies of Full Time No Limits Sexual Slavery don’t actually translate into reality that well. Too hard to maintain.

    Anyway, as for consent: I do think that a lot of the time, “consent” is invoked as a defense for a lot of things that people haven’t really taken the time to think fully about. But in the case of BDSM, at least in the case of *healthy* BDSM, you can bet that the people involved have really thought about their choices a lot, about their implications, about what it means about them as human beings, as feminists.

    You can rest assured that the d/s couple who has commented above did not enter into the master-slave aspect of their relationship lightly, or without any reflection or self-assessment. As for Meta’s blog, you have to be aware that she writes for a kinky audience, and thus doesn’t bother to explain the nuances of her use of terms like “master” and “slave” or feel the need to justify her feelings of happiness and contentment.

    (Also also: d/s blogs tend to focus on the sexual, not the mundane, so you don’t get to see the 90% of the relationship in which the partners quibble about what movie they want to watch or listen to each other vent about work.)

    When you ask questions like “How can you justify this,” a lot of kinky people respond with an annoyed “I consent to it,” or “Because I *like* it” simply because we’re tired of having to defend ourselves. I fully agree that these responses are not sufficient to explain how BDSM is compatible with a feminist or anti-authoritarian ideology, but you’ve got to understand that from our perspective, we don’t always want to spend hours and hours educating non-kinky people on the finer points of domination and submission. Especially when 9 times out of 10 it falls on deaf ears.

    • harmony March 30, 2009 at 2:52 AM #

      quoting subversive sub:
      “(Sort of reminds me of electoral democracy, but that’s just my snarky anarchist side talking…)”

      oh lawd, we have an anarchist defender of bdsm? as if a feminist defender of bdsm wasn’t already enough of a contradiction.

  35. isme February 10, 2009 at 10:47 AM #

    “but you’ve got to understand that from our perspective, we don’t always want to spend hours and hours educating…people…Especially when 9 times out of 10 it falls on deaf ears.”

    I’d imagine that would get some degree of sympathy, yes.

  36. Trinity February 12, 2009 at 4:32 PM #

    “When you ask questions like “How can you justify this,” a lot of kinky people respond with an annoyed “I consent to it,” or “Because I *like* it” simply because we’re tired of having to defend ourselves.”

    Yeah, this. And, well, it IS a point of disagreement, and big disagreement. But, well:

    Jenn tells us that she is “try[ing] to find those threads of patriarchy and excise them from my life. But this is a daunting task that I think will never be completely accomplished as long as patriarchal structures thrive.”

    I see in comments like Jenn’s this idea that people should be teasing out the impact of social dynamics on their lives, that there are these “threads” that are really difficult to get rid of.

    And my thing is… why do that? I don’t mean “ignorance is bliss,” which is how I think people in this discussion are taking it.

    I just mean, okay, so you know something happened to you or something cultural affected you, and you’re aware that it impacts what you want sexually. Now… why do you have to change yourself?

    I say this not because I don’t support people doing whatever they believe will make their love lives healthier, but only because I’m honestly baffled. And what baffles me is this:

    In the scores of accounts from people who are “attempting to excise,” I don’t think I have EVER, ONCE seen someone say “these are the threads I excised, and this is how doing so improved my life, and this is how excising them freed me up to better advance women’s liberation.”

    I’ve only ever seen “doing this excision thing is so tiring, and maddening, and makes me sad, and it’s so HARD, dammit.” Ever.

    Which makes me wonder how productive it is. I see exactly why y’all think it’s worth doing (though I tend to disagree, precisely because I don’t analyze BDSM as patriarchal)… but if it is so worth doing, why aren’t there people around saying “this is how my life improved after I did it?”

    Okay, so to be completely fair, I have seen one account in _Trauma and Recovery_ from a woman who changed her desires and felt it was for the better.

    But I have seen FAR more “This is so dispiritingly difficult, and I’m so weak…” which just strikes me as really self-punishing, and seems to indicate that that woman’s story is rare. Which is ironic given that one of the objections to BDSM is that it’s supposedly self-punishing!

    • harmony March 30, 2009 at 2:54 AM #

      there’s another successful account in “the courage to heal” by laura davis and ellen bass (i may be reversing their first / last names)

  37. devastatingyet February 21, 2009 at 8:01 AM #

    Earlier in this thread, the question was asked, why would anyone want to be a slave?

    My boyfriend wants to be a slave in his personal life. Since he hit puberty it is the basis of every sexual thought and feeling he’s had. Who the hell knows why?

    He’s also a clear-thinking, sarcastic, independent-minded, regular person who wants to do fulfilling work, having relationships with friends and family, and so on. And like anyone in a relationship, he has to balance those things.

    We talk all the damn time about how things are going, how we both feel, how/whether things are impacting his life. And then I go treat him like an object and he lights up with joy and begs me for more. And we keep talking and fixing what isn’t working.

    The male-dominant, female-submissive relationships I’m familiar with seem to work the same way.

  38. delphyne February 21, 2009 at 4:52 PM #

    “My boyfriend wants to be a slave in his personal life.”

    Luckily for him he’s got a woman on hand to meet his needs then.

    Female subs talk about keeping their masters happy, now you are doing the same from the other direction. The one constant is that it is the men who have to always be pleased and appeased by the women in their life.

    Anyhow looking at your blog it appears he also enjoys beating you up, so it isn’t the same dynamic of most of the female subs here who have relationships with male sadists. Although just reading through it apparently you have to wait until he wants to switch back, so it appears the control still lies with him.

  39. devastatingyet February 22, 2009 at 5:45 AM #

    Delphyne, you must have misread. When we switched (which we’ve done for a total of 5 days out of our 20-month-long relationship), it was explicitly agreed between us that either could end the period of switching at any time that we needed or wanted to. I became, at one point, irrationally insecure wishing that he would ask me to switch back, but as soon as I initiated the switch, it occurred.

    I’m having the best sex of my life. Yes, it also satisfies and is fun for my partner. Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be? I don’t do this to please him any more than any healthy and happy sex partners have mutually satisfying sex in order to please each other.

    It seems like what you’re saying is that if male doms claim the relationship is satisfying and pleasing to their female submissives (or if the submissives so claim) then either they are lying or deluded, but if I claim my relationship is satisfying and pleasing to my male submissive, then I’m just another tool of the patriarchy, trying to please my guy?

    Please.

  40. Jon February 27, 2009 at 7:05 PM #

    I have read the site you were looking at and you skipped over the other 7 levels. The levels you mentioned are the extreme. The site even admits that the 9th level doesn’t exist in the free world because you can always withdraw that consent.
    The 8th step is possible, but very difficult to achieve because it requires a HUGE amount of trust and respect from both sides.
    I also want to mention that what you have been railing on the whole time in this blog is the 9th level, the proverbial unicorn. You hear about it and never see it. Kink.com sells the image of the 9th level without achieving it (see my defense of it for more on that) and a lot of the people that are just getting into it fantasize about the 9th level without realizing the actual reality of it.
    Sure it’s an interesting idea for people, but that is just because they aren’t emotionally mature enough to deal with a relationship with a thinking breathing human. I would suggest they go buy real dolls.
    I would be interested in your opinions of levels 1-7, or maybe you didn’t like them simply because they didn’t validate your position enough.
    Even the 8th level you are demonizing still makes it clear that if she decides one day that this isn’t the life before her, she can leave at anytime.
    BDSM is filled with rules from both sides of the spectrum. A woman has limits and she tells her dom that from the get go. She makes her Hard Limits clear and a Dom won’t push those.
    In a relationship like this one, you have to have rules and structure in order to ensure that you don’t break one another. It’s a scary place to exist and you have to tread carefully.
    Some of the commentors have railed on the term “consensual slavery” and how awful it is that there is human trafficking all over the world. We agree with you. Real life forced slavery is awful. We are disgusted by it just as much as you. But here in America, we pretty much have a handle on the real life forced slavery. We have evolved to a point where you shouldn’t have to worry about armed gunman banging your door in and stealing you in the night. In this country we have evolved to the point where a term consensual slavery should be allowed to exist.
    However, I agree with other posters. We are ostracized by society in general because of our sexual preference. I can’t help the fact that my girlfriend enjoys getting a paddling and being ordered around a little. She can’t help the fact that I enjoy giving a paddling and doing a little ordering around.
    But this image you have of male dominates dictating every facet of a woman’s life is silly. My girlfriend has a life entirely of her own, and I am glad she has allowed me into it and to be a part of it. If she dumped me tomorrow, I would be upset and hurt, but I’d go quietly into the night.
    We aren’t the madmen you are making us out to be. We are people just like you. (And truth told, you would be amazed at how many of your friends are lifestyle but will never tell you cause you’re a vicious bigot.)
    I am open about my lifestyle with everyone I know. And I have caught a lot of hell for it. I have lost a few friends over it. And that is my choice to not be ashamed of it. Fact is though, this patriarchal society tells me I am the bad man in the shadows, and you are the righteous avenger.

    • Nine Deuce February 27, 2009 at 8:43 PM #

      I’m not down with any of those levels. My point isn’t the extremeness of the acts (though Kink.com and the higher levels here are worrisome), but the ideas behind them, that sex and power ought to be mingled.

      • harmony March 30, 2009 at 2:57 AM #

        amen

  41. harmony April 30, 2009 at 5:56 AM #

    here’s something you might want to use if you do a future post on bdsm. or for the knowledge of any of your readers who wander upon this comment.

    it’s on the issue of something called “sub drop”, which seems to suggest that bdsm has much higher risk for emotional damage than “vanilla” sex. shit, it sounds like some post-trauma reaction, the way this guy describes it. this type of reactions after “vanilla” sex is pretty much unheard of. i’m not saying it never happens in “vanilla” sex (with 7 billion people in the world, it probably does), but certainly not enough to get its own name.

    http://www.seekers.org.uk/Sub%20Drop.htm

    [excerpt]

    sub Drop

    [...]

    After all the emotional highs of the elevation of a submissive into subspace, the return to normality can have a profound effect on both Dominant and submissive. [...]

    Sub drop; the coming down, the return to normality, can happen quickly, or slowly. It can be a nice experience, or a bad one. And the effects, good or bad, can last almost no time at all, or they can go on for hours, even days.

    [...] The effects of subdrop ( and its usually referred to as subdrop when they are bad effects) are manifestly similar to a kind of depressive state. Each person will react differently, and I tend to say this a lot, when basing my experience upon those with my sub: she may be different from others in her reaction, but through many conversations and discussions it would seem there are also many similarities too, in the way submissives react. So perhaps this article can be a guide?

    Although the sub has rested, and very often slept, even after several hours there can be spontaneous outbursts of emotion: which might be tears, irrationality, fear, or any number of things. What the Dominant must do here is recognise these for what they are; a need to be comforted, and looked after, to be held, told how much she is needed, and how important she is. Subs are, in many ways like children. They crave attention, and often the sub psyche feels that they have lost the massive attention which they had before (during the scene) from their Dom/me, and this can cause the unease, and charged emotions that we see in a sub drop situation. Allied to this of course, are the hugely elevated amounts of naturally produced drugs (endorphins, adrenaline etc) that are likely still flowing around the subs body: these may take some time to return to normal levels, and there may well be a withdrawal effect caused by these too. So sub is going through a mental and physical “cold turkey”.

    The total effect of all this can seem to create a totally irrational person; she cries for no reason, you hold her and she pushes you away, you leave her alone and she wants to be held. [...]

    [...]

  42. devastatingyet April 30, 2009 at 10:27 PM #

    I’ve cried, suddenly and like a baby, after scenes where I’ve bottomed and (more rarely) after scenes where I’ve topped. It doesn’t feel like any kind of post-traumatic stress reaction when it happens to me. It’s more like just an emotional release. Sometimes it feels good, sometimes it feels more like desperate insecurity.

    It’s emotional stuff, for sure, and the endorphins can do a number on you. But, you know, you get the endorphins.

  43. harmony May 7, 2009 at 6:34 AM #

    hi 9 deuce, and everyone who is still checking out the comments of this entry.

    there is a thread on the bdsm message board “informed consent” that you might want to follow. here’s an excerpt from the original post:

    “How does 24/7 TPE work in terms of the slave/sub’s life. For instance is it possible to have children without them being involved and how does it effect family and friends. ”

    btw. “24/7 TPE” = 24/7 total power exchange = full time slavery (usually with no safe word, hence the “total” in total power exchance)

    http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/235702/

    it was just posted today so there are only a few replies, but as time goes on more should accumulate. some of the responses are already disturbing.

    “I can see that children might be aware, and I don’t think that’s automatically A Bad Thing (after all, in “typical” marriages the children are aware of their parent’s relationship to a degree too),”

    AND

    “Once one of my daughters started a conversation (once she’d made sure we were alone together- always a sure sign of Needing A Serious Answer) with a penetrating look at me and by saying: “Mummy, I don’t think men ought to hit women.”
    “I shan’t regale you with my reply (I towed the natural party line- is there any other?) but I knew then that she’d been compromised by my relationship, as had I been by failing to explain whatever had drawn her to start the conversation.”

  44. harmony May 7, 2009 at 6:41 AM #

    here’s another post from “informed consent” (a bdsm message board) which shows that bdsm-ers aren’t always so particular about that whole consent thing.

    title of the post is “how important is continuing consent?”

    people’s opinions: to each their own.

    http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/232988

  45. harmony May 7, 2009 at 6:42 AM #

    shit, i think i screwed up the link for the above post

    http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/232988/1

    that’s better

  46. observer July 10, 2009 at 11:43 PM #

    South Asian gay woman and feminist writing here. ND, you have a great blog. Thank the heavens someone is seriously critiquing pro-bdsm and pro-pornography culture. Have you seen this site?

    http://www.enslavement.org.uk/

    It’s one of the craziest bdsm sites I’ve gone through. They even use evolutionary psychology to justify their relationship patterns.

    • Nine Deuce July 11, 2009 at 3:20 AM #

      Holy shit. That was the most psychopathic thing I’ve ever seen. It’s telling that the site is all about female enslavement to males, and that the guy claims he doesn’t know whether it would work on men.

      • observer July 11, 2009 at 3:41 AM #

        Yep. I mean part of me wonders whether people like this can actually hear themselves speak (or read what they’re writing) and why it doesn’t seem to disturb them at all.

    • observer July 11, 2009 at 3:53 AM #

      Dude, check this out:

      http://www.enslavement.org.uk/soyouwant

      “If you do not tell your Master when something is bothering you, then you have no right whatsoever to become upset. However wonderful and omnipotent He may seem, He is not a mind reader: unless you tell Him, He won’t know.”

      As a South Asian, what disturbs me most about M/s relationships is that the way slaves address their masters is almost identical to the way bhaktas (religious devotees) in my part of the world address God. lol. You see someone almost ascribing omnipotence to an ordinary (if megalomaniacal) human being in this excerpt.

      • isme July 11, 2009 at 5:35 AM #

        “You see someone almost ascribing omnipotence to an ordinary (if megalomaniacal) human being in this excerpt.”

        Isn’t that more or less always the point of domination, though? To elevate oneself about humanity by lowering others?

        Though, this isn’t really my field.

        • observer July 11, 2009 at 5:23 PM #

          “Isn’t that more or less always the point of domination, though? To elevate oneself about humanity by lowering others?”

          Well, yeah, pretty much. Personally I actually do not critique bdsm from a purely feminist point of view. As a South Asian who is grounded in the philosophical traditions of my part of the world, which happen to discourage mindless hedonism, I argue against bdsm from an ethical perspective that sees the very acts of dominance and submission in and of themselves to be inherently disrespectful, and would suggest that this kind of emphasis on pleasure at the expense of relational self-giving and self-sacrifice is intrinsically selfish. You might say that a dom “gives” to the sub and vice versa, but I would not consider those kinds of “possessive generosities” selfless in any way, at least by the standards of the South Asian philosophical traditions.

          The best I can say about bdsm is that it is (a) a parody of power relations in mainstream society; and (b) a set of coping strategies that makes it easier to manage one’s need to dominate or submit in a safer way than might be the case if one merely repressed such tendencies. I still find it ethically highly questionable though.

          And I have to wonder about the health aspect as well. Empirical studies do show that people interested in bdsm are generally bored, nihilistic, escapist, etc. (see a book called “Mapping desire: geographies of sexualities”). To me it just seems like a lot of bdsm is a way to artificially create extreme sensations in the absence of a self-sustaining, rich inner life, and a set of activities that encourage mindless hedonism in the name of escapism from the apparent drudgery of daily life.

  47. observer July 11, 2009 at 12:02 AM #

    Btw, Section 377 (the sodomy laws left behind by British colonialism) is on its way to being repealed in India, i.e. homosexuality is about to be decriminalized. This is a huge step for the South Asian LGBT rights movement. Like you, I feel exceedingly annoyed when pro-porn and pro-bdsm activists think they can piggyback on the LGBT struggle. Our part of the world is exceedingly conservative and religious as it is. The last thing I would want is for our struggle to be de-legitimatized by associating it with these kinds of sexual practices. Many of us in South Asia are ourselves quite restrained about these things anyway — it’s a cultural thing. We generally frown upon sexual hedonism and materialism here. We want to make it clear to fellow South Asians that LGBT rights are not intrinsically tied to pornography or bdsm at all. So your critiques are indirectly benefiting us.

  48. Immir April 17, 2010 at 9:40 PM #

    Not much different to a traditional housewife?! There is some insight for you..

  49. Z November 25, 2010 at 7:43 PM #

    Well I’m way late but I like observer’s comments.

    That description of “sub drop” is very interesting. “Sub drop” sounds exactly like the reactions of abused people.

  50. Kelly April 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM #

    I know this is dead but I still want voice my opinion

    People keep saying that the permanent M/s relationship is a sexual preference, so but it’s more than that it’s a ‘lifestyle preference’. This more than just kinky sex, you can be tied up and whipped under strict rules with a safeword then go home and live the rest of your life, but for fulltime slave this is your life. Exchanging your personhood to live the thumb of another person is not a kink it’s insane. Its taking roleplaying and kink and applying to every aspect of your life 24/7, nobody should live like that it’s beyond ridculous. This shouldn’t be the basis of a relationship.

     Its clear to me that they aren’t really in control if the ‘slave’ is under the ‘master’ all the time, it’s an exuse for abuse. I’m not against BDSM (I’m not a fan) any sexual activities that have truly equal, consensual (as in true consent)  partners under controlled, safe circumstances is their business. Submitting to someone completely is what I have issue with the instrumentality of it disgusts and worries me. What is the pathology of some who wants to become an extention of someones will, how is that fufilling?          

    I’ve read some submissive blogs and I’m appaulled at the pychological, emotional and physical abuse that they ‘submit’ to; even using a computer is a ‘privilege’. From I’ve read many of the ‘slaves’ don’t enjoy many aspects of their relationship but feel they must out of obligation to their ‘master’ or believe they deserve mistreatment (not because they enjoy it rather as a self imposed punishment) This itself is not true consent it’s a handing over blank check and crossing your fingers. Ongoing negoitating Is important during sex but don’t  live your life under a psuedo-sexual role play. When D/s applies outside of sexual activity it’s no longer fantasy or roleplay it becomes the real dynamics in the relationship.    

     I’m not a phychologist but I believe many fulltime ‘slaves’ are suffering from battered person syndrome and possibly had emotional issues to start with. I know people are going to jump down my throat for saying that but honestly it’s true. Ongoing abuse and degradation especially on this level negatively affects the pyche. Being abused negatively impacts on people so a Master/Slave relationship (regardless of the genders) is not exempt from this. ‘Consent’ doesn’t mean that emotional damage is impossible. If people could completely control how the pyche reacts we’d be able withstand all sorts horrific things with ease but the brain doesn’t work like that way (disassociative disorder doesn’t count). The logical doesn’t completely erase the emotional.            

  51. Kelly April 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM #

     I’m not a phychologist but I believe many fulltime ‘slaves’ are suffering from battered person syndrome and possiblly had emotional issues to start with. I know people are going to jump down my throat for saying that but honestly it’s true. Ongoing abuse and degradation especially on this level negatively affects the pyche. Being abused negatively impacts on people so why do people think even if they originally consented that a Master/Slave relationship is exempt from this? ‘Consent’ doesn’t mean that emotional damage is impossible, if people could completely control how the pyche reacts we’d be able withstand all sorts horrific things but it doesn’t react that way.             

    The entire Master/Slave is based upon exchanging your personhood for kink. This plays right into the hands of domineering, sadistic, abusive pychopaths. Lets see the similarities between a ‘Master’ and the run off the mill abuser (this applies to both genders and gay permanent M/s relationships)  treating your partner as if they aren’t an adult, dimissing and disregarding them, having excuses made for you, misplacing fault and anger on your partner while they accept the fault, overreacting agressively to minor things or things that dont warrant anger, acting agressively when you are ‘challenged’, being egotisical, devising ways to punish your partner for ‘offenses’  and taking glee in it,  being emotionally callous, micromanaging, controlling major decisions without regard for you partner, expecting your partner to obey your every whim with no regard to the partner, belittling and undermining, having little empathy or concern for you partner only doing so for self-serving purposes, mind games, not showing mercy on your partner during difficult times (pregnancy, injury, emotional issues) and stopping you partner from living a normal life among other things. If you are walking on eggshells around your partner something is definetly wrong. 

     Some of them fulltime M/s couples have children, I can only hope for the healthy development of these children. How are they going to explain that they can sit on the toilet seat but when mummy does it daddy gets angry? (one couple does this I don’t know how they’ll potty train like this) This not good for a child, Even if they try and keep it away from them they will see the dynamic and normalize it. Just because they don’t see daddy whipping mummy doesn’t mean the won’t see other things, monkey see monkey do.   

    Also I’m not impressed with socialisation I’ve heard about in the community, pressing the boundaries to insane levels doing more than you are comfortable or capable of just impress others and gain social status within the community. Isn’t that against the safe, sane, consensual rule of the community, does it not dilute and  regress the practice, shouldn’t these attitudes be explicitly and implictly discouraged when encountered or is it not as important as it is the community likes everyone believe. 

  52. joy April 15, 2011 at 3:35 PM #

    People can have ongoing negotiation of consent in a non-BDSM sexual context as well. They often do.

    However, what “consent” really means has been the subject of multiple other blog posts, and all I can really say about the idea of consent is: LOL, if only it actually existed (or meant anything).

  53. Kelly April 15, 2011 at 5:58 PM #

     I don’t know if anyone is going to read this but I just had to say it. Also I’d just like to say that yes I’m telling people what they shouldn’t do. Is it unreasonable to tell someone not to self harm? Because honestly becoming a ‘consensual’ slave (quite the paradox) is self destructive behaviour. 

    I’m speaking not from a feminist perspective but a mental health perspective. Many people who have suffered abuse (all kinds of abuse not just sexual) in the past recreate the abuse both by abusing and being abused, this arrangement seems like a possible outlet for it. I dont know every individuals circumstances but I can say that something is wrong with a persons phyche to accept 24/7 sex slave arrangement. Its not something a mentally balanced person would willingly agree to (regardless if you are the slave or master). I’ve read her blog and she does every ‘Sir’ wants, when, wants and exactly how he wants in fact she says she fornuate that he ‘lets’ her have equal power in raising their children……is this for real? She says that he’s a less extreme domme and treats her by comparsion ‘nicely’ it horrifies me to think that there other people who are more extreme than this.    

    Honestly her husband is…. well I don’t want personalize but I don’t think highly of him. In a healthy relationship should an arguement end with you hogtied and nipple clamped in the livingroom then the images sent to another domme. It’s emotional terrorism. I can see some homosociality in the BDSM, it’s a sick macho posturing ‘look how powerful I am and notice how much sex I get’ coupled with unbelievable abuse  obviously this get him more status within his social circle who are also bdsmers. She then writes how SHE was out of line, she has written that she HAS to do things she doesn’t like because she’s his ‘slave’, drop everything at whim to literally service him that’s not consent. The slave may have loyalty to the master but it’s is often conflicted just like someone abused by a ‘regular’ abuser someone who is supposed to love them, who tell you the victim they love and care for them it may be so but that doesnt mean that they arent abusers. Just because it is arranged doesn’t doesn’t mean it’s not abuse

  54. Hecate April 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM #

    Bdsm culture is branching out across popular culture to a worrying extent I think, especially when you consider videos like this:

    Countless levels of disturbing there…

  55. Kelly April 16, 2011 at 10:42 PM #

    Oh sorry I meant to post the my last on the first ‘crybaby’ post. That’s the trouble with multi tasking windows sorry for any confusion but some of it is relevant.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. the fight with the radfems « Devastating Yet Inconsequential - February 22, 2009

    [...] No Comments Yes, everyone and their kinky mom is posting on this topic.  Earlier I posted this comment: Earlier in this thread, the question was asked, why would anyone want to be a [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 500 other followers