![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaAlmost finished reading bell hooks' Feminism is for Everyone. I got to the part where hooks wrote about the divisive debate within feminism thirty years ago over BDSM, and her comments which would place her on what is now (not quite accurately) called the "sex-positive" side of the debate, and reflected that it sounded eerily similar to debates i've read online over the past few months.
This debate is still going on now, and is still dividing people who, on many other issues (such as rape, family violence, wage imbalance, FGM, reproductive freedom, political representation, religious doctrine, etc.) would otherwise be allies.
The debates within feminism over BDSM, pornography, prostitution, and acceptance of transgenderism are important because they go to the heart of two differing -- but let me be clear, not mutually exclusive -- views over what constitutes the best possible feminist outcome. These debates create acrimony because in part they force radicals to examine what it is we are ultimately working for, and who then constitutes our foes.
On the one hand you have people whose main goal is the utter dissolution of discriminatory power imbalance in society. Their experiences have led them to conclude that, humankind being as it is, any expression of power imbalance could be a gateway for domination to enter society. For example, they will argue that the social construction of gender would not survive the dissolution of patriarchy. Therefore any performance of gender reinforces the discriminatory power imbalance.
On the other hand you have people who want to see a world where people feel empowered to express themselves just as they wish. Their experiences have led them to conclude that what ties a person down is any form of restriction on their self-expression. They see as a foe anyone who seeks to restrict them, especially if they are citing an ideological or philosophical point of view.
In a sense, both points of view could be simultaneously true. The first point of view looks at the structure of society at the ideological and institutional level and examines how this affects the individual. The second point of view starts by examining what restrictiveness looks like at the level of individual experience and works upward to the structure of society from there.
Why do these two approaches, then, have so much overlap (with regards to women's rights) yet still they do not meet in the middle? I think the ultimate answer to this question goes beyond the scope of a single journal entry. But i'm going to ponder it for quite a while.
Right now i wanted to focus a bit on the question of BDSM. Critique of BDSM from the first point of view might include, for example, an observation that much or most BDSM practice reflects a culturally-standard male-dom fem-sub arrangement; or a theory that women living in a patriarchal society might so deeply internalize cultural notions of male domination that their sexual fantasies have been colonized, and so women are not truly capable to freely consent to being dominated; or the question of what the difference really is between traditional marriage and 24-7 BDSM, if in both arrangements you find women who are expected to follow orders or face violence if their performance is unsatisfactory?
I don't think these questions are easily dismissed. Nor is the response from the second point of view, which might include, for example, testimony that many women receive enjoyment and satisfaction from BDSM; that in their lives they have found that attempts to suppress these desires are more oppressive than seeking to fulfill them; that there is something important and profound which would be lost if people gave up BDSM; and that women have been forced to give up so much under patriarchy that it is not good or right to make them feel they have to give up anything else, which they enjoy, in order to achieve liberation.
It is relevant to ponder what the unraveling of gender or of male domination would look like. This is still an open question. People who take the first perspective are inclined to believe that any proposed solution which bears characteristics resembling the problem itself are not really a solution. For example, they say of transsexualism that 'sexual reassignment' does not help to unravel gender because it guides gender rebels back into the male-or-female fold -- and therefore it is informed by the gender caste system. Of BDSM, they would say that it leads sexual rebels back into the mainstream sexual domination fold.
The second perspective would suggest that reshaping a system of involuntary caste domination into something more democratic is progress towards greater individual freedom. IOW, when someone comes to the BDSM community, they are taught that they ultimately have the power to consent or not consent to any arrangement -- and that furthermore they are capable, if they find acceptable partners, into a form of power exchange previously unknown to them. In practice this is not always perfect, but i have heard of situations where people were literally able to unravel abusive patterns in their relationship after learning that they had the power in any BDSM arrangement to negotiate the terms.
If we are to ponder the unraveling of the gender caste system as something which will happen in stages, rather than all at once, BDSM might even look like one of several tentative first steps in that process. It is true that in much of the BDSM community we can find defenders of sexism. But in this respect they are no different than the rest of society, and while we should not be silent about sexism in BDSM, we also should perhaps consider that since people have been so deeply colonized by patriarchy, that it will take stages, steps, changes by degree, for human beings to learn how to relate to one another in any other way.
This debate is still going on now, and is still dividing people who, on many other issues (such as rape, family violence, wage imbalance, FGM, reproductive freedom, political representation, religious doctrine, etc.) would otherwise be allies.
The debates within feminism over BDSM, pornography, prostitution, and acceptance of transgenderism are important because they go to the heart of two differing -- but let me be clear, not mutually exclusive -- views over what constitutes the best possible feminist outcome. These debates create acrimony because in part they force radicals to examine what it is we are ultimately working for, and who then constitutes our foes.
On the one hand you have people whose main goal is the utter dissolution of discriminatory power imbalance in society. Their experiences have led them to conclude that, humankind being as it is, any expression of power imbalance could be a gateway for domination to enter society. For example, they will argue that the social construction of gender would not survive the dissolution of patriarchy. Therefore any performance of gender reinforces the discriminatory power imbalance.
On the other hand you have people who want to see a world where people feel empowered to express themselves just as they wish. Their experiences have led them to conclude that what ties a person down is any form of restriction on their self-expression. They see as a foe anyone who seeks to restrict them, especially if they are citing an ideological or philosophical point of view.
In a sense, both points of view could be simultaneously true. The first point of view looks at the structure of society at the ideological and institutional level and examines how this affects the individual. The second point of view starts by examining what restrictiveness looks like at the level of individual experience and works upward to the structure of society from there.
Why do these two approaches, then, have so much overlap (with regards to women's rights) yet still they do not meet in the middle? I think the ultimate answer to this question goes beyond the scope of a single journal entry. But i'm going to ponder it for quite a while.
Right now i wanted to focus a bit on the question of BDSM. Critique of BDSM from the first point of view might include, for example, an observation that much or most BDSM practice reflects a culturally-standard male-dom fem-sub arrangement; or a theory that women living in a patriarchal society might so deeply internalize cultural notions of male domination that their sexual fantasies have been colonized, and so women are not truly capable to freely consent to being dominated; or the question of what the difference really is between traditional marriage and 24-7 BDSM, if in both arrangements you find women who are expected to follow orders or face violence if their performance is unsatisfactory?
I don't think these questions are easily dismissed. Nor is the response from the second point of view, which might include, for example, testimony that many women receive enjoyment and satisfaction from BDSM; that in their lives they have found that attempts to suppress these desires are more oppressive than seeking to fulfill them; that there is something important and profound which would be lost if people gave up BDSM; and that women have been forced to give up so much under patriarchy that it is not good or right to make them feel they have to give up anything else, which they enjoy, in order to achieve liberation.
It is relevant to ponder what the unraveling of gender or of male domination would look like. This is still an open question. People who take the first perspective are inclined to believe that any proposed solution which bears characteristics resembling the problem itself are not really a solution. For example, they say of transsexualism that 'sexual reassignment' does not help to unravel gender because it guides gender rebels back into the male-or-female fold -- and therefore it is informed by the gender caste system. Of BDSM, they would say that it leads sexual rebels back into the mainstream sexual domination fold.
The second perspective would suggest that reshaping a system of involuntary caste domination into something more democratic is progress towards greater individual freedom. IOW, when someone comes to the BDSM community, they are taught that they ultimately have the power to consent or not consent to any arrangement -- and that furthermore they are capable, if they find acceptable partners, into a form of power exchange previously unknown to them. In practice this is not always perfect, but i have heard of situations where people were literally able to unravel abusive patterns in their relationship after learning that they had the power in any BDSM arrangement to negotiate the terms.
If we are to ponder the unraveling of the gender caste system as something which will happen in stages, rather than all at once, BDSM might even look like one of several tentative first steps in that process. It is true that in much of the BDSM community we can find defenders of sexism. But in this respect they are no different than the rest of society, and while we should not be silent about sexism in BDSM, we also should perhaps consider that since people have been so deeply colonized by patriarchy, that it will take stages, steps, changes by degree, for human beings to learn how to relate to one another in any other way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-25 09:37 pm (UTC)Exactly so. The "play parties" in Central Texas that I am familiar with seemed to be close to 50/50, leaning perhaps a bit more in the directions of male Dom/female sub, though there were also several male/male D/s couples. I haven't attended "public" parties in a few years, but I doubt the percentages have changed much.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 10:59 am (UTC)I think it is very important - especially to those involved who want an equal society - to observe which trends in BDSM are inherently sexists, and which may just mimic the forms of sexism and then to root out the actual forms of sexism. Personally I think most "controversial" or "radical" things are in and of themselves nuetral - perhaps with a freeing idealogy behind them, but highly subject to being taken over by and used to enforce (because the idea that they are radical is seen as an inherent property of the name of a thing, rather than how the thing is executed/ what is actually happening. You know, sort of like your ideas on what happens with religions and other movements, just these are things that move along different vectors.
On a harm to society level, I feel the question that must be asked is do women who are not into BDSM feel pressure to be more submissive than they would otherwise be because BDSM exists. And right now I feel this must be monitered very closely. Because while I don't feel that BDSM in and of itself is sexist (in fact that whole negotiating the terms thing I think is very empowering. Even if the want to be submissive comes from embedded societal notions, participating where consent is considered paramount and terms can be negotiated allows more exercise of freedom than a "you have no choice, you can't do this because it is a bad desire" type attidute) I think it is very, VERY rapidly being colonized by pressures used to undermine consent. I mean, where is the talk about the dom caring enough, controly the domly self enough and the situation enough to create an atmosphere where the sub wants to consent to more these days? Pretty much disappeared. Instead the sub-culture is moving into placing all the responsibilty for unfullfilling relationships (short of overt physical coercion) onto the sub (all that talk about "not being sub enough" to give the dom what he demands). And that is a perversion of the whole ideas of exchange and consent. At the same time BDSM is getting more popular. I think this is where the gateway principle comes in. Gateways go both ways. And if something becomes popular enough and if what is on the "radical" side of the gateway can be held up as an ideal or threat to modify the behavior of "mundane" relationships- then perhaps something can be termed bad for women in general. Porn might be a good example of where something like this has taken place to such an extent that what good it could potentially do is heavily outweighed by the harm it causes.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-26 03:43 pm (UTC)Thank you for noticing the parallel. :)
Yes, any kind of movement that starts out with a potentially liberatory premise or ideology is at danger from the first moment of being co-opted into the defense of the status-quo. I agree with you that negotiating terms is a potentially very empowering aspect of BDSM. We could add safewords to that too.
But i also share your concern about consent being undermined, both within BDSM and without. As many feminists have noted, BDSM ideas and imagery are so well-recognized now that they shape sexist practice in the mainstream culture. (This is becoming true of polyamory and other non-monogamous paradigms too; witness what young people are saying about "friends with benefits" -- it is starting to become a new vocabulary for boys to justify getting sex from girls without putting any effort into caring about them whatsoever.) I'm particularly concerned about the notion of fantasies being colonized. I... well, you remember the ambivalence i felt about some of the things you saw me doing 3-4 years ago in New Orleans.
I mean, where is the talk about the dom caring enough, controly the domly self enough and the situation enough to create an atmosphere where the sub wants to consent to more these days? Pretty much disappeared. Instead the sub-culture is moving into placing all the responsibilty for unfullfilling relationships (short of overt physical coercion) onto the sub (all that talk about "not being sub enough" to give the dom what he demands).
This is exactly right, and it is good cause for concern. Others i know in the scene have talked to me about concerns that there's increasing pressure to submit to edgier and edgier things. Pressure on people to not use safewords or bragging that they don't allow their subs to use them. And sometimes people die.
Most of the people i know who are activists in the scene, at least, have their head on straight about these things. So overall i'm less worried about people who are involved with the public side of the scene. It's on the fringes where i'm concerned; outside of the gaze of scene scrutiny you find a lot of doms who are basically sadistic predators. And they've already worked out how to twist the ideas of SSC and safewords and consent out of their true meaning.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-28 09:43 am (UTC)This may sound like pointless quibbling on level since I know what you mean. But I feel it is important to phrase it more like there are a lot of sadistic predators who are coopting the label of dom.
witness what young people are saying about "friends with benefits" -- it is starting to become a new vocabulary for boys to justify getting sex from girls without putting any effort into caring about them whatsoever
Actually, they are after more than sex. Most react very badly when they find out they are just a fuck, even though that is all they want. In other words, they want women to give all that culture says is supposed to come with sex, without giving anything other than sex.
I'm particularly concerned about the notion of fantasies being colonized.
I am, and I'm not. I mean, experience is going to have a hand in shaping fantasy, just seems to be how the human mind tends to work. I think here what needs to be done is an openness to the idea of fantasy (no OMG's you want WHAT?!?!) enough so that people aren't afraid to process them, to see what they mean, and how the fantasy image can create something way different than what the "real world" situation is. What you said earlier about people being healed through BDSM - that obviously involves fantasies of powerlessness to some degree and addresses them in a way transforms that into something empowering. So I don't see the colonization of fantasies so much as the biggest threat. Rather that force which works to tell us fantasies are bad, that we must want the real world outcome (even though we know even without trying before hand that we will feel bad about them - I mean, how big of a clue is that that fantasies work in a different way) and that because we have these "bad" fantasies we deserve the "bad" results. I guess what I am trying to say is that in essense I think it is the force of colonization plus guilt that can be dangerous. Freed of guilt (which can be a hard thing to do. personal guilt, then the entrance of guilt from be blasted by notions that if you want in some cases - oh just sex - you should feel guilty) then fantasies - whatever they are and rather indulged in the mind or in a safe way - can be empowering and transformative. Sort of the minds way of holistically and symbolically protecting us - and keep in mind that what looks one way in word-thought can often look nearly opposite from non-word think.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-29 04:53 pm (UTC)Okay, i can agree with that. Usually what happens is that these people are driven out of the scene, because they can't stand the scrutiny that their practices draw. I once saw an entire play party come to a crashing halt because a 'dom' refused to recognize the party safeword; dungeon masters intervened and forced him to stop, resulting in a loudly pronounced threat to call the police.
And then there was this: http://sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com/259026.html
Well, the issue of colonization of fantasies is one i'm dealing with now, since i had an epiphany about this recently. It does make one question how much of one's sexual desires and needs are 'genuine' and then force oneself to examine what distinguishes a 'genuine' need in the first place. It's very crazy-making, i don't know where 'i' begin and the colonization stops -- or even if that distinction is meaningful.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-30 09:06 am (UTC)i don't know where 'i' begin and the colonization stops -- or even if that distinction is meaningful.
Well, in someways colonization is part of the enviornment, so to that extent, to the way that being influences/is influenced by the enviornment in a continuous circle then they will inform desires.
I really haven't thought of it all too much. So here is your warning. I have no idea if the long rambly thing below is even connected to what you are thinking about, may be ground that you have been over, or if it even makes sense. Read the rambling stuff below at dire threat to your own non-boredom.
But... I think sexual desires - especially the more and more it gets into the realm of being a fantasy - is more than about a concerete "what". It is more like a picture/tactile/sensory/emotive way of the brain telling us what sensations have meaning to us, and telling us perhaps what other needs that may address.
Taking the last paragraph of what you have linked to (and having that interplay with thoughts I have had that are vaguely related but could be applied) what you are saying is that the further you are able to go into that fantasy in the real world depends on having found certain qualities that are connected to the fantasy but aren't really SEXUAL feelings, and these are things that you want to feel/give. As in you sensibly only go so far, but you fantasize about more because what you WANT is what makes those acts possible. And doing those acts to the degree you have the non-tangibles that are connected with doing them is a very potent way of communicating to deep parts of yourself that you have found those things. Because even if you have found them, some part of you may only really understand it in those terms.
There "intuitive" or "emotional" parts of the brain react much more strongly to more sensory symbols than words symbols. And what is fantasy (whether in imagination or real life) but a living out of a full-blown sensorama metaphor that our brain creates. So fantasy are our brains way in part of telling us what we want but more so telling us how we can really *feel* those things we want once we find them. They are the brains way of telling us the "language" it considers its mother tongue in certain situations.
It seems that the dangercomes if we use fantasy as a way to GAIN what we want (in other words, we should EXAMINE or fantasies to see if feelings other than purely physical happen in them). Like if approval (probably a need that shapes a lot of the sexual desires that get labelled colonized) and the feelings of were entwined in the sexual fantasy, then that (ie, the approval) should be there first before it is acted on. Because the fantasy doesn't get us anything from other particiapants but the physical aspects - and sometimes that is okay, sometimes that is hurtful spiritually and emotionally if the thing the act communicates to the deeper parts of the brain is absent from the act that communicates it, or if the act involves physical danger and the person we do it with is unworthy of the trust, then physical damages could happen. It is just a way to really feel it, to rev up the emotions, to present the world in a way the emotional self can really feel when what it wants is there.
So it is very possible that a disempowering reality can cause certain desires. I mean, some fantasies (and I think a substantial amount of sub-type fantasy comes from this) comes from recreating a situation that was made harmful by the lack of certain elements ( ones that we may not think about as being there if they are not concrete, because most people don't think about what is NOT present as being a function of what is present anyway, but the part of the brain that makes intuitive connections does) and making a sensually similar atmosphere where those elements are present. Perhaps in interpreting our fantasies we only think about the "concrete" because that is what we have been taught to focus on when the way it makes us feel (in additon to horny) and things like that are just as important a part.