Professor Foxy,
I've had submissive sexual fantasies since I was very young and it's something that I've always found really difficult to come to terms with. I'm a very assertive and driven person in real life so it's just really hard for me to accept how much I sexually enjoy giving up control and power.
I've been dating my current boyfriend for two years and we've experimented quite a bit with bondage and dominance play. It's always incredibly arousing and fun for me. And he enjoys it too because he can tell how much it turns me on.
Intellectually I understand that these feelings are just a part of my sexuality and that they don't have anything to do with who I am outside of the bedroom. But at the same time, every once in a while I just feel so ashamed and guilty. It's hard to reconcile being a feminist with my strong sexual desire to submit. What can I do to accept my sexuality for what it is?
-Conflicted feminist
Hi Conflicted -
A good step towards accepting your sexuality for what it is may be to unpack it a little bit more. I want to quote you back to you: I'm a very assertive and driven person in real life so it's just really hard for me to accept how much I sexually enjoy giving up control and power.
I'm going to come back to the first part, but first let's focus on the second part of the sentence: I sexually enjoy giving up control and power. YOU give up control and power. In the real world, power and control are taken from women in an effort to make them submissive. In your sex life, as convoluted as this may seem, you are in power because you make the choice to give up power. Your boyfriend (yay for him) engaged in this because you (still in power) asked him to engage. As much as the sex play is about you "giving up power," in reality you are still the one in control.
A friend of mine is a strong, independent, assertive woman, who, like you, enjoys being submissive sexually, says it this way, "even when I am being submissive, I know that I am the one in power. I let the person dominate me, I set what can and cannot be done, and I can call a beginning and stop to the action."
And now back to the beginning of your sentence "I'm a very assertive and driven person in real life." Sex can be a healthy way of achieving balance in our lives. Acting out your submissive side (a side every person has) allows you to unwind and let go. We all need to have a place to act out all of our different sides and it looks like you have found a place to act out one of them.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Ask Professor Foxy: Submissive Feminists?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12636
yay! I've had these same questions myself. I just never thought to ask/tell someone about it.
Thank you for answering this question without any condescending disclaimers, such as: "Your boyfriend's not abusive is he?" "Now make sure you have a safeword!" "Just be sure it's not your subconscious trying to figure out your past abusive relationships/your father being a dickwad/etc..." we've all heard them.
I enjoy a little kink in the bedroom as well. I'm glad I'm not the only feminist who has somewhat unfeminist fantasies.
I completely and totally agree, Tsunade! I've had problems coming to terms with this, too, and am so glad it was addressed (and addressed in a non-condescending way, as you said).
~Jennie
I completely agree. I love my (kinky) sex life & being a feminist into BDSM :D
thank you!!! lets get some more kink up in here.
I'm in college and studying sexuality quite frequently. Sex is just a outlet for playing out roles that a person would never play out in public. I love the answer to this question and totally agree that sexual desire is much different than one's essential identity.
Thank you! Some people think that sexual submission is something that people want because of self-loathing or social programming. On the contrary, submission allows to explore emotions we don't get to experience, or don't get to have control over, in "real life." It allows us to find strength in new ways; to experience the exhileration of controlled vulnerability, fear, and even embarassment; and for some of us, to have ecstatic and spiritual experiences by taking ourselves to extremes. Remember that the power the dominant partner has is given to them by the submissive partner, and ultimately taken back; by definition, submissives are powerful.
Thank you for not answering with the standard (and very condescending) "you're just brainwashed by society" BS. I'm impressed that this issue was tackled so, well, tactfully. :)
I reccomend anyone who feels this conflicted to read 'Forbidden Flowers' by Nancy Friday, and also 'Men in love' by the same person. These are collections of anonymous sexual fantasies from interviews and letters from men and women, (FF is the female one) and surprisingly enough, what the men fantasise about most is not dominance or rape, but being dominated and raped. So women having submissive fantasies are no different to a lot of men, who do too. Also, Nancy Friday's analysis of rape/submissive fantasy is excellent. Often women and men's fantasies of being dominated come from the idea of 'I'm so attractive I drove him mad with lust despite all I could do to fight him off', or for those who feel some guilt about fantasising, 'he made me do it, it wasn't my fault.' They do not come from any real desire to be mistreated or submissive in other areas of life.
Hmmm. Does this work as well the other way?
Here this is framed primarily as the woman's needs being met, therefore the playacting of submission is acceptable.
But what if it was her boyfriend who enjoyed being dominant? If her submission was geared toward meeting his desires, not her own, does it become less feminist friendly?
I'd be curious to hear what others think when the situation is reversed.
I think it works the other way. I believe if a partner asks to be the dominant person during a sexual encounter, that's perfectly fine as long as both partners are willing. I've always believed the best sexual partnerships happen when both people are willing to explore most of what the other would like to experience.
As Brandi says, it works if you assume that the partners involved, whether dominant or submissive, have chosen these sexual activities, mutually. As long as both partners have communicated their desires and both partners needs are being met, the power relationship *within the sexual activity* doesn't matter as much, because in the overall relationship the dynamic is one of mutuality.
This would be the same if the guy were wanting to be submissive or the woman wanted to be dominant too. The key is both people feeling uncoerced.
I think the issue of who asks to try it first is a red herring, so long as everything is safe, sane, and consensual. Every person in a relationship (male, female, gay, straight, any combination of gender and orientation) has the duty to their partner to be unselfish, and the duty/right to refuse to do anything that makes them uncomfortable. For BDSM this goes double, because the stakes are so high. Even a dominant does this. Every relationship has give and take. Just because on one occasion the person giving a little is the woman doesn't make it any different morally than if it's the man - or, let's be all inclusive here, the other woman.
To add to what everyone else is saying -- I think there might be a misunderstanding somewhere in your question. I think the "needs being met" framing isn't about who asks for what, it's about part of the appeal of the submissive role for anyone. People who enjoy being submissive in bed (whether they or their partner is the initiator in whatever particular instance) often like it because it allows you to "let go" and trust someone else to take care of things; in a sense, the job of making sex happen is given entirely to the dominant partner, and the submissive partner gets to just sit back and enjoy it. I think that's the sense in which it was first meant.
let's focus on the second part of the sentence: I sexually enjoy giving up control and power. YOU give up control and power.
I really like this whole response, since I've struggled with some of these same questions. I came to more or less the same conclusion: that the point is I'm choosing -- in specific relationships and contexts where I feel safe, respected, and known as a whole human being -- to step back from being the one in the driver's seat. As Prof. Foxy suggested, it's one powerful way for me to maintain a sense of balance and grounded-ness in my life. Knowing that I have relationships in which I can relenquish the decision-making for a little while is deeply nurturing -- and an incredible turn-on!
Prof Foxy, I have been really enjoying your posts. I appreciate the way you approach these issues with depth and a recognition of the complexity of being human. Just wanted to say thank you and keep it up!
I like to think of it as you and your partner driving in a car. He may be in the driver seat, but you still get to give directions, maybe choose the destination, and if things aren't going well, you can tell him to pull over. Also, if you don't want to be the driver, you are not giving into a stereotype of weak women drivers. You are simply exercising your choice. While my analogy is a bit silly, I'm trying to make the point that just because your partner is in control, it doesn't mean that you are powerless and somehow being unfeminist.
Power is not a zero-sum game. Just because someone else has power, it doesn't mean you have none.
I really like this weeks column. I absolutely hate being in the dominant position during sex. Not even a kinky way, but I just don't like being on top.
Also, many people have used the metaphor of driving a car. I usually let my boyfriend drive, even in my car, because I don't particularly like driving. I've felt that I was reinforcing stereotypes that women are bad drivers or that it was symbolic of relationship power. But I guess I can also see it as me choosing to be a passenger.
Professor Foxy, your smart, sensitive posts are a wonderful Saturday morning surprise. I forget that you'll have a new post each week, and I'm thrilled when I come to feministing and find a new one.
I've been a conscious feminist since I was 12, yet this relates to an issue I've struggled with (not so much dominance/submission, but being turned on by *seriously* un-feminist sexual fantasies). I finally came to the conclusion that the important thing is being able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and that we all have a shadow side that can teach us a lot if we deal with it rather than attempting to ignore it.
I appreciate Professor Foxy's answer and others' comments, but from what I've seen, a lot of people, especially those interested in BDSM, believe that while there *are* dominant women and submissive men, the great majority of men are dominant, while the great majority of women are submissive. In fact, I recently read a comment by a Dominant man who felt he and his beloved Submissive wife were only expressing their true selves (the way God, or perhaps Nature, intended), and that both of them were much happier as a result, despite being forced to pretend otherwise in these "politically correct" times. :-( It does bother me that many people seem to be getting into the old Men = Naturally Dominant while Women = Naturally Submissive mindset again.
I think a lot of it depends on who's being asked and who's doing the asking. By the numbers, more lesbian and bi-identified women participate in BDSM activities in a given year than any other cohort. Straight men were at the very bottom. Some BDSM communities are more het than others. Some are more traditional than others. So for some, I am _______, "as Nature intended" is a statement that is designed to reinforce traditional gender norms. For others, it's merely a statement of fact. I switch, but am predominantly submissive. I choose to couple with people who complement me, almost always dominant, mostly men. So when I say "I am having D/s sex as God and nature intended" it's not because I'm socially submissive to my partner (I'm not) or because I think everyone else is wrong for not doing it (hey, whatever floats their boat), but because it's right for me and natural for me. This is far and away the most common view I've seen among players, although perhaps it's my environment (liberal college, major city with a very organized kink scene). Some people can get very "Story of O" and deterministic about it, but I would say they're in the minority.
Acutally, every single book I've read on BDSM (I've been involved in the scene for a few years) has unanimously maintained that the single largest demographic in the scene is submissive men. It's simply because there are more men than women in the BDSM community (since women are still pressured to hide/suppress their sexuality by society at large) and there are more submissives than dominants.
Thank you for this wonderful post!
I don't particularly mind being the lone voice of dissent here, and the rhetoric about this subject is often so skewed that it might give other dissenters courage to think or speak freely if they see someone else's remarks.
We live in a society that is based on domination and submission--the brutalization of one person or group of persons for the benefit of another. This is called "patriarchy." Nothing we do or think is free of patriarchy; everything we can currently imagine or act is done within the context of patriarchy. D/S in the bedroom, fetishizing torture of the body or spirit in the bedroom, is by definition happening within and saturated by patriarchy.
Do what you like in bed, but please do not tell fairy tales about it, and don't tell me it's "feminist" to hurt or inflict hurt, to dominate or be dominated, because it's not. If we had no patriarchy, if there was no overriding, hideous system designed to subjugate some and elevate others, I might be inclined to believe that BDSM is a positive behavior--but then, if we had no patriarchy, BDSM would not hold nearly the fascination it does now. Without patriarchy, the so-called "submissive side" of our personality, taken for granted as being natural because we can't currently imagine the possibility of life without domination and submission, would simply go away.
You're an idiot.
Seriously. Stay out of other peoples' bedrooms. It's none of your goddamn business.
And for what it's worth, my boyfriend and I like to switch. Sometimes he ties me up and beats me, sometimes I peg him in the ass. What the fuck does that say to the patriarchy, huh?
Bahahaha that comment was amazing.
I try, haha.
'Cause silencing people who disagree with you is so...feminist?
She's not attacking people, she's saying her opinion. And she damn well has a point-just because it's a fantasy or a bedroom activity does not mean it's free from patriarchal influence. And just because it's what you choose to do does not mean it's immune to discussion. she's not screaming you're an evil, patriarchal torch wielding monster. I swear, immediate, harsh reactions like this make it extremely difficult to have a conversation about things like this.
That's because it shouldn't BE a conversation, duh. What 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business. End of story. It's not up to discussion.
Well, it's up for discussion because this is a sex column and the original question was about how to put together feminist beliefs with submission fantasies. It's a fair question, just obnoxiously worded. And more categorical than I, personally, believe the issue to be.
Who died and left you in charge of what's up for discussion? It certainly wasn't Professor Foxy or any of the moderators.
I'm not sure whether I agree with the original poster, but there's absolutely no reason why she shouldn't be allowed to state her opinion.
I don't think feminism is here to leave alone certain subjects because some people feel they're off limits. She's not dissecting your sex life or anyone else's, it's a general discussion. If a couple watches violent porn, some us aren't going to ignore it and say "well, it's up to them." We're not going to criticize either, but we can have a discussion about how or if the patriarchy is influencing what we like and/or are turned on by.
Wow, and you called her an idiot. Consent is a funny thing. I was sexually abused when I was younger and as I grew up consented to being the submissive - I even thought I liked it. Looking back however from a much healthier headspace I know that I was consenting to something that was very, very unhealthy for me. Given the influence of the patriarchy it is not all surprising that the majority of submissives of female because we are brought up to believe that that is our proper role. Exactly where does that lie with your consent theory?
Whatever gets them off.
I don't CARE why someone is submissive or dominant. It's none of my BUSINESS. I'm sorry that you were abused, but that doesn't mean that your experience applies across the board to other submissives.
I'm a switch, anyway, so I don't "get" the whole 24-7 sub dynamic. But it doesn't matter, because it's not my dynamic to "get."
That's a horrible argument.
We've seen it before. I'm calling it the Appeal to Orgasm.
X,
X gives you an orgasm,
therefore, X is good.
That's a horribly fallacious argument.
That's not my argument.
X--which occurs in a safe space between consenting adults--gives me an orgasm, therefore X is good.
Obviously if molesting children gets me off, we've got problems. But if what I do is SAFE, SANE AND CONSENSUAL, I don't give a fuck what you think of it.
I'm right, you're wrong. The end!
Nice try.
I think you're making a mistake that's very common in these kind of discussions. Asking about the cultural origins and influences of certain types of behaviors and desires is not the same as being judgmental of the people who engage in them. It just isn't. I know that's frequently the assumption by commenters on this site, but it doesn't follow logically and it doesn't map onto reality.
And silencing people is not consistent with feminism.
Asking someone to question isn't passing judgment, but returning over and over for years to "you haven't examined!" and not explicitly engaging people when they do describe their examination starts to look a lot more like passing judgment than like discussing cultural influences.
But that's exactly what some of us are trying to do-ENGAGE. But what are most doing? Shutting down completely.
I guess I didn't hear anyone accusing anybody of not having examined their fetishes. And, in fact, I'm really not interested in forcing any individuals to examine their own fetishes or turn-ons. I'm interested in how our different sexual desires in general are connected to the larger cultural context and its prevalent attitudes and values. Your personal fetishes and desires are only interesting to me insofar as they are part of a larger trend. And I'm equally interested in so-called "vanilla" desires as in the more "extreme" desires. I would suspect that many others who ask these kinds of questions feel the same. But you're free to interpret the questions as you will, and by all means, lump everyone who's ever asked this kind of question, for any reason, into one big monolithic group. Because that's a great way to foster constructive dialogue.
As if the anti-feminists don't do enough sexual shaming without feminists jumping in, too. Nice.
It seems to me that some so-called feminists are more or less indistinguishable from the anti-feminist crowd. Same sense of smug superiority at having found the Morally Correct Way To Fuck.
Yes, because having a discussion is exactly the same thing as condemnation.
Yes, because deciding that something is an Issue that Needs Examination is a completely judgment-free act.
The letter-writer seems to have made up her mind w/r/t her sexuality. It is not helpful, or on-topic for the time-worn choruses to telling people that they only have the sexuality they do because of our broken society emerge almost instantly.
Yet no one is saying that-we're try to have a discussion, not tell people what they're doing is wrong and shameful.
Danielle,
Do you understand why what you call "discussion" is often experienced by us as badgering and judgment? I can't tell if you're just unaware, or disagreeing.
But "I'm just trying to discuss!" is so often used by men to silence women's stories that I'd think women would be more careful than this about using the same tactic on other women.
This isn't about silencing. Nothing of the sort, or are you unaware that trying to have a discussion about sexuality and patriarchy is normal discourse on a feminist blog? But using words like "you idiot!" is much more similar to what men do to women than what some of us are trying to do.
Danielle,
Do me a huge favor and actually read the links I've provided, and back up "this isn't about silencing" with, you know, some argument.
You are not the arbiter up on high of what is and isn't appropriate discussion. Also, you're talking about us putting ourselves under a microscope without giving us the same courtesy.
Also, who says I haven't examined? And who says I haven't made my doing so public?
If I see you responding directly to that post, I'll know you're interested in discussion. If I don't, I'll know you really weren't interested in my examination or its results at all.
I think your point that our fantasies are, in part, shaped by the culture in which we live, is a valid one. However, your combative tone is offensive. Even though all of us exist within a cultural framework, we do have agency within that framework to resist it -- and sometimes resistance can happen through the manipulation of the dominant narratives.
If you're going to raise challenging questions like this, please do so in a respectful manner.
'Without patriarchy, the so-called "submissive side" of our personality...would simply go away.'
No, it wouldn't... Mommy.
I'm not going to tell you D/s is "feminist." To me, it doesn't matter, because I've seen and experienced it as something that transcends boundaries, particularly of gender (watching a fem-domme scene is how I realized I liked women). Your critique sounds not precisely like a feminist one per se, but closer to radical Marxism, if anything. Yes, there is power imbalance in the world of many different kinds. Yes, the fact that it exists is probably what allows it to exist in my bedroom. Yes, I might not have thought of it with out patriarchy, capitalism, racism, etc. I have no problem with that. I don't think we as people are under any obligation to shame ourselves and stifle impulses that we have had since childhood. Some people are more ambitious, some more creative, some more extroverted. These innate traits all directly lead to power imbalance in the world. Would you suppress those instincts as well?
I think this is a valid point to add to the conversation/discussion.
...So I take it you've investigated the sexual habits of every historical matriarchy and found that not one member of such a culture engaged in any kind of bondage/submission or had such fantasies?
OH WAIT. No, you haven't.
Laughingrat, I understand what you're saying here, but I disagree when you say "if we had no patriarchy, BDSM would not hold nearly the fascination it does now." Similar arguments could be (and have been) made saying something like "if we didn't have culturally enforced gender roles, people wouldn't be transgender." Whether or not that's true (I think it's false), it certainly is no reason to try to prevent transgender people in the real world here and now from living the way that's best for them. Like it or not, the world they're living in does have those cultural roles and they shouldn't have to pretend otherwise just to make theorists happy.
So sure, I agree with you that patriarchy problematizes sex and we should work to get rid of it and who knows, maybe our society's sexual preferences will shift away from BDSM in that case. Or maybe people will continue to like it. But consenting and communicating adults should do what works best for them in the mean time.
Hey, thanks for breaking the consensus. I think the feministing community benefits a lot when people are willing to speak up when they don't agree.
I completely agree. It amazes me that people who consider themselves feminists don't question where these submissive fantasies are coming from. Given the majority of submissive people are women along with the fact that women are constantly made submissive outside of the bedroom it does beg the question about exactly where these fantasies are coming from.
All I am hearing from the people who are disagreeing with you is that they are too afraid to face their own fantasies in case they find something that they don't like.
Oh. My. God.
I really don't think we've been reading the same thread. That's not at all what I've read other posters saying at all.
For my part, I'm a female, and I like my kink, and for the most part, I'm submissive in the bedroom.
I'm sure as hell not "too afraid" to look into why I feel that way. I'll tell you right now. I like it because it gets me hot! It's sex. That's what sex is about, getting off, and submitting gets me off. Why the hell does it have to mean more than that?!
This patriachy BS really pisses me off. I grew up in a house were my MOM made all the decisions. My pa earned the money, but my mom (grandmother really) reaised eleven kids inculding me! She had the harder job, and she took care of all the bills, did all the shopping, and decided when and what big purchases were to be bought. It never occured to me until I got older and started seeing other families that things were different elsewhere. So you can through that "men have kept me down" BS right out the window. Please!
I submit because I want to. Because it's hot for me. It's under my terms and with someone I like. Isn't that what feminism was supposed to be all about? Letting women decide for themselves? Well I have. And I'm not going to feel bad about it either.
No one is trying to make you feel bad. No one is saying "all submissives are like THIS." It's that many people don't question fantasies or even what turns them on. It's "off limits." That can be a problem. If it works for you, great. But just because you grew up in such a household doesn't mean that situation or even anything like it applies to everyone. Your story-valid. What becstar has to say? Also valid. For some people, they may not realize just how damn influential the patriarchy is. And for you, if that's absolutely not the case, once again, great. But I sit in doubt over whether there is NO influence by the patriarchy whatsoever on anyone's sexual likes, especially when it permeates just about every aspect of our lives.
Between laughingrat and becstar (who agrees completely), my blood started to boil and I saw red.
I told my story because I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me. Blanket statements piss me off. Not everyone's life is 'saturated by patriarchy'. Not everyone's kink is based on some extreme version of the patriarchy.
The idea that if we didn't live in a patriarchy, no one would want to be submissive or dominant in bed or otherwise is so ridiculous to me I can't even comprehend how anyone would come to that conclusion. I really can't.
The truth is, I don't think anyone can know what a world without patriarchy OR without a societal system designed to subjugate some and elevate others (because the two are NOT the same damnit). We can't know. We live in this system, it influences us and our opinions in all sorts of ways. Like laughingrat and I who have both rejected the patriarchy as a bad way to go about things, but in very different ways it seems. There are others that just accept it, and others still that embrace it. We are all affected. It's like stipulating what our world would be like without religion. We don't know. We can't know. Making blanket statements about what it would be like is folly. It's also dead maddening for me.
You know, I always hated feminists. The patriarchy told me I should be a certain way, as a woman, and then feminists come along and tell me I have to be some other version, and if I don't then I'm a bad woman and betraying all woman-kind. This is the picture of feminism that was projected to me in my youth. And its one laughingrat seems to be keeping alive. Well I reject both ideas, damnit.
Feminism, for me, is fighting for my freedom to "act in that manner, which will, in my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to...any person so wholly unconnected with me". Jane Austen got it right in 1813.
So, why can't my decision to fulfill my sexual desires be considered feminist? I'm seeking out what I want, and making it happen. I'm using my freedom to make myself happy. What could be more feminist??
That doesn't mean we can't discuss things like this. When people respond emotionally and defensively and cut off arguments? That's when I can't stand feminists.
Goddess forbid we respond "emotionally"! Emotions are part of life and I'm sick and tired that "calm/rational=we should listen to you/take you seriously" but "emotional=we can't take you seriously." Nice silencing tactic.
Oh please. Calling people an idiot and acting as if your sex life is free from influence? That's a nice silencing tactic, not pointing out that emotional and harsh reactions prevent further discussion.
danielle, i personally respond emotionally because, although you are, for the most part, being pretty neutral and respectful, others here are not. And you are choosing to ignore that. i get emotional because, like anyone, i get a bit touchy when people denigrate large aspects of my personality. this is inherently an emotional topic. i've had partners call me a freak because of what i like - need - to do when i have sex. my college roommate, a women's and gender studies major, flat out told me that she thought what i was doing was wrong. even after a long discussion with lots of evidence on my side and zip on hers. it's a rift we've never recovered from. this is not a dispassionate topic. it's sex. it doesn't get any less detached than that. so while it's not ideal, our frustration is certainly, i think, understandable.
Not everyone's life is 'saturated by patriarchy'.
Seriously? Are you living on the planet earth?
I think a lot of people like to feel like they're immune to their cultural environment. It's understandable to cling to that belief. But it certainly doen't have map onto reality, and attacking people who suggest that our cultural context has a lot to do with how our sexuality develops isn't particularly helpful.
But why does it get you hot? Sexual desires are learnt and why exactly is it that women are more likely to become "hot" by submission than by dominance?
I remember having submissive fantasies at the age of three. Maybe I had them even younger, but can't remember. Being a sexual submissive is a very important part of me and I've always thought it was innate. I've always known what I am. Suppressing this side of me or feeling ashamed of it for feminism's sake would not have any empowering and more feminist effect on my life.
Of course our sexual desires are partly shaped by the patriarchy, as is every other aspect of our lives. But I also think the very basis of our sexual orientation could be innate. For me the gender of my dominant never was important, I get off by submitting to both women and men. I never had to think of myself in terms of being gay or heterosexual, because for me that was not the basic question. My basic sexual orientation is submissive.
But why did I go after guys and not girls when looking for a relationship? That's where I blame the all-encompassing patriarchy and it's effect on our worldview.
And I don't know if the majority of submissives are women. In some of the BDSM-related websites this is true. In my community, however, the majority of both the dominants and submissives are men.
My primary mental image of the typical submissive is actually a wealthy businessman with a type-A personality who hires professional Dominatrixes to indulge his submissive side.
Not that there IS a typical submissive. It would be interesting to see statistics on this.
Yeah, I've always thought that on average more men are into submissive fantasies.
I don't have a statistic on submissive men vs submissive women, but I did read somewhere that in a study of men's fantasies they found that more of them fantasized about being the submissive one than the dominant one.
I think people like to assume roles in the bedroom (or wherever they prefer to shag) opposite of what they are in real life. That's why so many rich, powerful men pay through the nose to be tied up and spanked by hookers or mistresses. My girlfriend is a very strong and assertive woman and she LOVES it when I surprise her with a good hard smack on the ass, or grab her and throw her on the bed.
On the other hand, I enjoy it when she rips hair out of my chest. But I think I speak for most straight men who aren't rich CEOs or government officials with Napoleon complexes when I say that dominant/submissive, aggressive/passive, top/bottom -as long as I'm getting laid, I really don't care one way or the other, though I do prefer spooning to other positions.
Why do we enjoy what we enjoy? I don't know and I don't really care. It's like the fundie gay-bashers who INSIST that being gay is a choice. Even if it's true, who gives a shit?
Maybe my girlfriend has a thing for being smacked on the ass because her parents spanked her for misbehaving. Or maybe she likes being picked up and thrown on the bed because it reminds her of the scary thrill of falling out of her tree house as a kid. I can't think of any reason why I like having my chest hair ripped -in fact it hurts like hell. But we do like those things and if we're going to psychoanalyze total strangers based on what they like to do while boinking, I'd like to say that anyone who has a problem with how consenting adults get off could use a good shag of their own and leave the rest of us alone.
It's like the fundie gay-bashers who INSIST that being gay is a choice. Even if it's true, who gives a shit?
But this isn't a good analogy, because the fundies are being judgmental of gays and want them to change. But you can inquire into the social and cultural influences on sexual desire without being judgmental of the desires or the people who have them, and without thinking that they should change their desires/sexuality. One is a critique of the culture while the other is a critique of the persons. And engaging in a critique of the culture does not amount to judging the people who are influenced/ constructed by it. It just doesn't.
At the age of three we are firmly ensconced in the patriarchy, so that's not necessarily an indication that it's innate. Most theorists agree that we acquire a patriarchal (and capitalist) worldview as we acquire language. That's not to say that the formation of our sexuality and our sexual desires doesn't start that early. But it's certainly not occuring in a cultural vacuum.
"At the age of three we are firmly ensconced in the patriarchy, so that's not necessarily an indication that it's innate. Most theorists agree that we acquire a patriarchal (and capitalist) worldview as we acquire language. That's not to say that the formation of our sexuality and our sexual desires doesn't start that early. But it's certainly not occuring in a cultural vacuum."
CVan you give me a citation for "most theorists?" While I don't disagree with the statement, I think it's an all too common sloppy habit on blogs to assert that "theorists" claim something without a citation.
The main one would be Lacan, and many French and American feminists (and theorists on gender identity and language acquisition in general) are deeply influenced by his work. Chomsky and Wittgenstein have similar thoughts on the relationship between language acquisition and intergenerational transmission of culture. The idea is that language itself is deeply normative, and it embodies our worldview and values in deep and subtle ways.
One great illustration of the normative character of language is to play the game "antonyms", where you go around the room and each individual is given a word and must provide the antonym for it, to the satisfaction of the rest of the group, within five seconds (or they have to drink a shot, according to our rules). When you start firing off these antonym pairs it becomes striking how normative language really is - almost every pair contains a good/bad. Even the most mundane words are part of a good/bad binary couple like this.
I don't really put much faith in Lacan and Freud, personally. I think the ideas Lacan had about signification are interesting, but I'm skeptical of relying on them alone, especially to actually treat illness.
I know that at the age of three all the people are deeply influenced by the patriarchy. That's the usual age of the princess-phase girls go through etc. I mentioned the age of three because that long I can remember. Maybe I had my submissive fantasies before. Can't know now. For me, it has always been there, for as long as I can remember. I wasn't saying it's necessarily innate, but it could be. Just like being homosexual or transgendered - do you think they are innate or a product of conditioning?
I'd also like to know which are these theorists you write about? Do they think you adopt the patriarchal worldview because of the sexism encoded in the language or because you learn to name the concepts of gender differentiation you see everywhere around?
Im from Finland, so English is not my strong side. I hope you can understand me.
First off thankyou for replying rationally rather than calling names. Secondly I do believe that some people are naturally that way. I just find it hard to believe that all female submissives are. From my experience talking to people about this there are a lot of women who are act submissive and take it as the norm but do not necessarily identify themselves as BDSM. Same goes for men acting dominant.
When people don't question why they get off on D/S and how long they have and take it as a given I think is the problem. I have always gotten on on vanilla sex but more into the experimentation of positions/food related/new techniques than in any sort of power play but when I got into my first sexual relationship started to automatically play the submissive role and convinced myself I liked it until I ended up absolutely hating myself and wondering why. I wonder how many other women who claim to like it and are feeling the same way but are too scared to admit it? Or like it because that's the only way they know thanks to Western culture?
Really? Because the actual numbers in the article stated that the group most likely to engage in kink was women who have sex with other women. What part of the patriarchy is that fulfilling? Or are all those female tops actually secretly men? *checks under my skirt. Still a vagina there. * Also, for that matter, most anecdata I'm aware of shows a pretty even split as far as top/bottom goes for gender.
That aside, there are some serious problems with your statements. Not least, the assumption that people who are into kink simply haven't "examined" enough. Bullshit, pure and simple. Especially the feminists, because we're forced to justify ourselves constantly, to explain why we have the audacity to call ourselves feminists. We HAVE examined our desires and motives, endlessly. And we actually came up with a different answer than you. Our lived experiences aren't so much actually lining up with your theories.
When they say keep keep out of folks bed rooms that can go for the feminists as well as the religious right. As long as no one is getting hurt and of their own free will you do you.
I love this question! I have an extremely dominant, assertive personality, but I am only attracted to physically imposing men. I think it all balances out just fine.
I am sooo glad someone asked this question because I've had the same guilty feelings. I worried from time to time that it meant that women were naturally (supposed to be) submissive and it scarred me because I like having rights. ALOT!
To give an alternate point of view, the only time I ever want to be submissive is when I don't like my body or my mind and therefore don't think it deserves any kind of respect and/or that that is the only thing I am good for. I think it can be good for some people but I also think it needs to be analysed very carefully about where these urges are coming from and whether the partner is actually respectful or whether he gets off on hurting women.
If someone is dominant, into hurting people, and attracted to women, then OF COURSE s/he gets off on hurting women. That's the pretty much definition.
It's possible to get off on by hurting someone and still respect that person and their boundaries. Any sexual partner who doesn't respect you should be given the boot, and that goes for dom(me)s as well.
I don't think the origin or those desires necessarily NEEDS to be analyzed anymore than any sexual desire NEEDS to be analyzed. The analysis has potential to be interesting, but it's not necessary. And frankly, I really care more about actions than thoughts. If the guy who ties me up and spanks me treats me with respect, I don't really care why he likes to to tie me up and spank me.
Really? Because I would.
There are men who happen to be male, dominant, sadistic* and heterosexual. Due to the convergence of these factors, these men will be into "hurting" women. You have a point about that. Although I'm not sure I like the term hurt in this context, because hurt implies that you weren't ultimately enjoying it.
I believe there could also be men who are into hurting women, and they end up using their sexuality to express that. I would expect that these are a minority among male Doms, but still... there is a difference between being into [hurting] [women] and being into [hurting women].
I think in the case of BDSM, the origin of Ds desires do need to be analyzed from a feminist perspective.
*do you say sadistic? I don't like to use the word sadistic, but I am referring to the sado in sadomasochism.
What's the difference between [hurting] [women] and [hurting women]? And how is that different from being into hurting women and expressing it through sexuality? And does any of it matter as long as the guy treats you and your boundaries with respect, and treats you as an equal outside the bedroom?
Why do you think origin needs to be analyzed? No one tells me to analyze my more vanilla turn-ons -- they're universally accepted as "normal" and "healthy" and therefore they can go unquestioned. The only case where I think desire really needs to be analyzed is when it connects to abuse or trauma in the person's past, and could cause mental issues if acted on.
I think it says a lot that the kink community -- where D/s is a big, big thing -- has the healthiest attitude towards sex I have ever encountered. They place a lot of emphasis on consent, respect for your partner, and mutual pleasure. Vanilla people could certainly stand to take a page out of their book.
As for sadistic, I like the word a lot but rarely use it myself because I have so much trouble mentally separating it from the normal usage, and using it in the context of sadomasochism just sounds wrong.
"I think it says a lot that the kink community -- where D/s is a big, big thing -- has the healthiest attitude towards sex I have ever encountered. They place a lot of emphasis on consent, respect for your partner, and mutual pleasure. Vanilla people could certainly stand to take a page out of their book."
I'm going to take my anecdata and turn it into a positive generalization, then end my sentence with an ambiguous but negative generalization about "vanilla people."
What if I say my experiences with the D/S community (I capitalized the S to make it more empowering, you guyz!!!) was that it was overtly white, racist, and refused to think critically about what gets them off, and instead rationalized and justified things but would never allow any deconstruction that led to anything but positive outcomes?
What if I were to tell you that "Vanilla people" that I have met are mostly the same, too, in and outside of the world of sexuality?
Could it be because they all grow up in the same world, and grow up human?
Incest and age-play exists because incestuous rape (not to say there cannot be adult and consensual incest, but that is another bag) exists. Race-fetishization exists because racism exists. Slave-play exists because slavery really does exist. Dominant/Submissive play exists because in reality there are negative relationships that exist with those dynamics. Rape play exists because rape exists. Etc.
I could theorize that a lot of the community consists of people, privileged people in the Western world, that are not exposed to these things on their most raw level in frequency that others are exposed to. They engage in it and are able to positively redefine it because they have the POWER to do so.
Do I think that any of this is inherently wrong? Do I think that any of these people should stop what they are doing? Do I think that they are worse or somehow less enlightened than I am because they do it and I don't?
No, of course. I can separate my thoughts from the realm of society that they exist on, and how they would affect others and their happiness if I thought everyone should do as I say or think the way I do.
Maybe vast generalizations, but certainly true to some extent. It makes a certain amount of sense, actually. People who are into sex involving power play have to think a lot about sexual freedom, being non-judgmental, and respecting boundaries. There are always exceptions. There is some crazy out there, and there are certainly people who believe their lifestyle is the best for everyone, but that goes on everywhere.
I enjoy analyzing desire and I'm fascinated with the question of where all this stuff comes from. I do object the idea that every single kinky person ABSOLUTELY MUST analyze their desire. It's the equivalent of requiring everyone to keep a dream journal -- potentially very interesting, but not likely to change a thing.
I don't think that anyone absolutely must do anything. Ideally, I'd LIKE them to think about it, as I'd like everyone to think about everything they like and dislike. However, they don't have to. It doesn't make them a lesser person, as I've said, if they don't.
We live in a world where questioning can be threatening, because there ARE oppressive viewpoints which will seep into people's heads that they are dirty or wrong for what they do if they question what makes them happy and let others push in their OWN viewpoints in.
I think my tone up there was a bit vexing, so I apologize if I came off as a bit mocking or rude.
I do just generally think there was a kneejerk reaction to laughingrat's comment ... when it was respectful and just a different perspective.
The more we talk this stuff out, I think the less hostile we're going to get. Which is why shutting down conversation with insults like the ones that were used up there is not good.
The difference between a man who likes to [hurt] [women] and a man who likes to [hurt women] is his beliefs and attitudes about women. If he treats you respectfully, that means he probably is not a man who likes to [hurt women]. I was just trying to point out that there is more than one thing going on here. I have personally met a male dom who was kind of scary because he definitely hated women (one of my friends was involved with him, not me, but we had a nice long discussion about whether or not women want to be raped).
Most of the BDSM community isn't like that guy. In fact, everybody is probably extra careful because of people like him You're right that the vanilla community could take a page from the BDSM community about communication and consent. In fact, I think the vanilla community is slowly learning and that the BDSM community really deserves credit for developing a dialogue about boundaries and consent.
Every time some vanilla person makes a joke about "what's your safe word," they are reaffirming the concept that consent can be withdrawn in the middle of an encounter, whether they're thinking about it that way or not.
I was not trying to say that BDSM is bad.
And honestly, I think that vanilla sex should be analyzed too. For example, the most vanilla thing I can think of is the missionary position. What a terrible position! It's hard to rub the clit in that position, and why is the man on top doing all the work? The woman can just lie there and think about something else if she wants to. She doesn't really have to be engaged at all. That's vanilla as it gets and it's also very worthy of feminist critique.
In any case, you and Nerdisms seemed to have resolved this thread now, and the real action is happening down at the bottom of the comments. I just wanted to say that my comment wasn't intended to be judgmental or anti-BDSM. I also did not mean to imply that anybody in particular who is involved in BDSM hasn't really thought about the roots of their desires. I figure that most people probably have thought about that. I was trying to say that I think it is worthy of analysis now in this forum.
Oh I completely disagree! Missionary for some people is frekaing fantastic. It's the only way I orgasm during sex!
How can you respect someone and want to hurt them? Or respect them and want to use them as a sex object? (and I'm not being a smart-arse, I really would like to know how the definition of respect works in those relationships). How is there a difference between a man you gets off on hurting women who are consenting and someone who gets off hurting women in general? How can it be separated?
If someone pays attention to my boundaries and treats me as an equal outside the bedroom, then he respects me. Respect has nothing to do with what makes a dick hard or a pussy wet and everything to do with actions.
D/s is a kind of play acting. You take on roles you both enjoy, and once you're done you put away those roles until next time. I don't see how this is incompatible with respect.
How is there a difference between a man you gets off on hurting women who are consenting and someone who gets off hurting women in general?
There are men who only like to hurt women who enjoy it, and there are men who only like to hurt women who don't want it, or at least can act like they don't want it. I'm much less concerned with the difference between those two types than I am concerned about the difference between men who hurt consenting women and men who hurt women who aren't consenting.
I don't care about what a guy jerks off to. That's in his head and it's not hurting anyone. I care about how he acts and what he does.
So if someone is using your body to play out say rape "fantasies" but with consent only because he does not want to have a criminal record that would be acceptable because it doesn't matter what's going on his head? I don't get how submissives don't care what their dom is thinking about them during the scene. Aren't they ultimately getting off on hurting you no matrer what twist you put on it? Who's to say that that is not how they really want to treat women all of the time but are to socially shamed to do it? Why does that not matter, or the fact that it could be coming out of misogyny and a lack of respect?
Maybe he doesn't want a criminal record -- or more likely, even though he's aroused by the thought, he knows that raping random women is WRONG. There's a difference between being turned on by something and thinking that something is a good thing.
You can't help what gets you off. Maybe a few people can change their turn-ons, but that's rare. If it were at all possible, a lot of people with awkward fetishes would be much happier. Think of something you find hot and spend some time trying not to be aroused by it. It probably won't work.
Of course he's hurting me. I like being hurt. There's nothing wrong with that.
Actions are infinitely more important than thoughts. I have a sarcastic bitchy inner monologue that never turns off, and while I think some pretty awful things, I don't say them or act on them because they would hurt people, and that's wrong. Doesn't mean I stop thinking them.
So he would rape legally? I can't stop comparing it to women who consent because they are scared which all of a sudden makes it not rape in the eyes of the law but hazy morally. It seems a bit too much like the line "you can't rape the willing" to me when used by rape apologists to claim that the woman wanted it.
"So he would rape legally?"
Do you mean would he actually rape if it were legal to do so? Because I don't really think that this is what nattles_thing is saying. She says that it is likely that "he knows that raping random women is WRONG." Not that it is illegal, but that it is morally wrong. All of the people I know who identify as dominant or a top wouldn't dream of actually acting out their fantasies on an unwilling partner, and not just because it would be illegal. I think (and I don't really know because I'm really not a switch) that the fact that someone would willingly submit to having those things (not just "rape" but other fantasies as well) done to them, and actually enjoy it, is part of the appeal. For a lot, probably most, dominants the idea of a truly unconsenting (or coerced) partner is a major turn off.
I sure hope that is right but with all the talk of not caring whether dominants actually need the consent to make it enjoyable or not it quite disturbing to read. I don't quite get why someone would simply not care about why dominants do like the things they do.
Are you seriously suggesting that women only participate in D/s because they're too scared to say no?
Two situations:
A man breaks into a woman's house, ambushes her, ties her down and rapes her. Afterwards he leaves and leaves her feeling completely violated.
A man and woman meet and discuss a scenario they would like to act out. They discuss boundaries and safewords and talk about exactly what they would like to do. The man ties the woman down and has sex with her. They both enjoy it, and after it leaves she feels happy and satisfied.
If you don't think there's a huge difference between these two, you are an idiot. CONSENT CHANGES EVERYTHING.
Two more situations:
A woman gets pregnant in a country where abortion is illegal. Back-alley abortions are very dangerous, and so she is forced to have the baby.
A woman gets pregnant with her husband after trying for several months. She is overjoyed and can't wait to be a mother, and she is really thrilled when she has the baby.
If you can see the difference between these two situations, you should be able to see the difference between the first two.
I am not suggesting that the woman is too scared to say no, I'm suggesting that it is an awfully convenient way for the desire to rape to be considered okay, even among feminists, because its not considered PC to question people's sexual practices. Why would someone *want* to rape someone else, consent or not? Why would someone want that done to them? From where I am standing consent seems a purely legal technicality.
Do not ever, ever reduce my consent to a "legal technicality." If you don't understand how dehumanizing that is, you have some serious thinking to do. I take my consent very seriously.
It's interesting to look at why someone might want to rape, but in the end it doesn't actually matter I don't care if someone wants to rape people nearly as much as I care if they DO rape people. If a guy wants to rape someone, and doesn't because he knows it's completely, completely wrong, then why is there anything wrong with acting that fantasy out with a consenting partner? No one in this situation thinks that rape is okay.
Even fantasies that aren't obviously about power are usually about power. Rape fantasies have less to do with actual rape than they do with power dynamics.
I think those who think women only enjoy sexual submission in BDSM scenarios are products of patriarchy are missing the point, or don't understand how BDSM works. Patriarchy has traditionally about removing all choice from women, and forcing us to submit not just to sexual violence, but inequality in all spheres. The whole point of BDSM is everyone has a voice, and everyone has a choice. That, I'd say, is something that goes in direct opposition to patriarchy, rather than supporting it.
As Prof Foxy rightly points out, even when you're the submissive, you are still driving the situation insofar as you have chosen this, you're asking your partner to do something in particular to it because you like it, and you can also stop the situation at any time. Since when has patriarchy promoted women choosing what they want, asking men to satisfy them sexually, and having the right to stop at any time?
BDSM is based on mutual consent and enjoyment, an idea that is so often absent from mainstream portrayals of sex, including mainstream porn. Many BDSM sites (I'm a fan of www.fuckedandbound.com) make a point of showing the actors/actresses before and after the shoot, wearing normal clothes and looking, well, normal - to emphasise 'this is just fantasy, no one is actually being forced or hurt, and at the end of the day we put on our clothes and go pay the gas bill!'. Mainstream porn never extends the same courtesy to women, or makes the point that 'hey, this isn't real, and you might want to ask your girlfriend before trying any of this on her!'. Hence I feel the BDSM community is actually inline with many of feminism's demands, unlike other mainstream sexual cultures.
Ultimately if you want to say that I am 'conditioned' to want to be a submissive, there's not much I can do about it - it's like the ultimate argument stopper. You can respond to anything someone says with "You're just conditioned!". I could argue that it's narrow-minded conditioning that makes people think women can only submit sexually as a result of patriarchy and oppression. People don't seem to be able to deal with the complicated idea that you might want equal pay, equal rights, freedom from violence and rape in your work and every day life, but might want to go home and be tied up by your b/f or g/f. I don't think it's that hard to get your head around personally - I get tired of having to be in control every day and letting go in the bedroom really helps me. I don't agree that it makes me a tool of patriarchy, or my boyfriend a violent woman-hater. Like other posters here, I have had submissive fantasies from a very young age, and I think the only thing anti-feminist about any sexual act is when you do it because of pressure or expectation. I can happily say that has never been the case for me - my sex life has always been about choice, and as a result it is a very plesurable one.
I don't agree that it makes me a tool of patriarchy, or my boyfriend a violent woman-hater.
But investigating/critiquing the cultural factors behind gendered sexual desires and dynamics doesn't amount to this. The claim that women who are sexually submissive are mere tools of the patriarchy etc, etc simply does not follow from the claim that our cultural environment impacts the formation of sexual desire. These are separate claims, and taking a feminist interest in how culture impacts sexual desire is perfectly compatible with being open-minded and accepting of people's personal kinks and interests.
"Ultimately if you want to say that I am 'conditioned' to want to be a submissive, there's not much I can do about it - it's like the ultimate argument stopper. You can respond to anything someone says with "You're just conditioned!"."
Exactly.
And the big thing I still really don't understand is, well, basically, what Harper says in a comment to my post here:
http://trinityva.livejournal.com/1000547.html?thread=6213219#t6213219
"We could stipulate, purely for the sake of argument, that someone's desires for dominance and/or submission are the result of bad relationships, bad role models and sexist culture. So what? I don't think feminism is about abstract notion or morality or purity. The relevant question is not where desires come from but where they take you. Do your submissive fantasies and/or experiences leave you feeling good about yourself and your relationships? Do they contribute to safe and satisfying relationships? Do your dominant fantasies and/or experiences lead you to actually denigrate or abuse your partner, or others around you, or have other harmful effects? The Feministing commenter who said it would be better for people's communities if they didn't do BDSM seemed to hint at such an effects-based analysis, but didn't offer anything to support it."
I'm really with her on this one. Yeah, knowing where things come from might be nice and all, but feminism isn't about figuring out why women are the way they are, but rather about socially advancing them. How does finally nailing down where BDSM comes from enable us to better the world for women as a class? I'd really like a clear, specific answer to that.
I think it's of general interest to most feminists to understand how our cultural environment constructs us to behave certain ways, to desire certain things, etc. It seems like a lot of people who object to this assume that you can somehow be strong enough to be immune to your cultural context and not internalize social conceptions of female behavior and sexuality. Besides being breathtakingly naive, it's a strange view in that it portrays immunity to one's culture as a matter of strength and weakness.
And simply because you're questioning the source of some dynamic doesn't mean you're saying it's a bad thing. In some cases that may be what the questioner is after, but it doesn't have to be. But the connection of systemic cultural critique with shaming/controlling individuals has become such a strong meme here on Feministing that it almost doesn't seem worth arguing over anymore. I, for one, am willing to take the hit and be labeled judgmental for being interested in how our culture shapes our sexual desires, even though I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the desire to be sexually submissive/dominant/whatever.
Since men are required / expected to be dominant under a patriarchal system, this would make sense. Particularly if, as we've been suggesting, are, in part, about finding balance in our lives, sexual or otherwise.
Hello,
I'm a man who likes to read this site (bit nervous about posting), and I created this account just because I wanted to say how really really really really really impressed I am with this thread. I'm wolf-grinning into my Sunday tea as I read it, and I think you ladies all rock.
I'll be bookmarking this thread for several purposes, such as:
– Showing to my next guy friend who makes a "feminists are all angry, ugly and frigid" comment
– More importantly, emailing it to my best gal friend, a sparkling lady with whom I "went friends" because really none of us could handle her desire for a good spanking at nights (and my liking of giving it) with our wanting to go on being bestest buds at day.
- And also I'm, you know, gonna re-read it for myself from time to time. A very *cough* relieving read it was.
Anyway, congrats on having carried out the only mature discussion on this on the Internet.
– Showing to my next guy friend who makes a "feminists are all angry, ugly and frigid" comment
You can also show him this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm
To be honest I'm a little surprised at some of the condescending comments here, and I was hesitant to even post.
I think Professor Foxy's response was right on. I am ALL for sexual pleasure/freedom/happiness in the bedroom, and have no desire to sexually shame anyone. If you or your significant other choose to be dominant/submissive, that's awesome. My S/O and I have done this on numerous occasions and I enjoy it.
With that said, I don't think it's off limits to analyze the origins of these feelings, because a lot of our fantasies/desires are influenced by our surroundings (society and media)- sexual or not.
If a man fantasizes about dominating/raping a woman (as numerous porn videos act out), is that okay, because it gets him off and she is consenting (and perhaps getting off too)?
Why is it that the majority of porn features a submissive female and a dominant male (shoving his penis down her throat and then cumming on her face)? Is it because females are instinctively submissive and males are inherently dominant? I'm sure everyone here would argue no.
These women ARE consenting and they may be enjoying it, but I don't think it's out of the question to wonder why this is the norm.
whoa
While most of the comments seem to be respectful and civil I've noticed that some of them are quite judgmental. I think it would be a good idea if some people re-read the original question to prof Foxy before posting.
It's important to remember that there's an actual person behind this question dealing with real issues and we should remember that before we generalize about all submissive women.
Some people are talking about the danger of men 'getting off' on abusing women, but that's not the issue here. The question was about women who really enjoy being submissive in the bedroom from time to time. Frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong with it if both partners are consenting adults who respect each other.
Whether or not such desires are a product of the patriarchy is a valid question, but I think it severely over simplifies the matter. Everyone is different and it's impossible to pinpoint the cause of someone's sexual desires when you barely know anything about them. And even if such sexual desires do have some foundation in the patriarchy does that mean that a person should have to suppress their sexual identity. It sounds an awful lot like the religious right saying homosexuality is based in sin and people should ignore their desires and be normal.
Also a lot of people are generalizing about how it's the norm for women to be sexually submissive (or vice versa). If you have no stats to back this up, it's an unfair argument to make. As a sexually submissive woman who practices BDSM I can guarantee you that society in no way sees me as the norm. If you ask 90% of people, I'm a freak.
I've read most of this comments thread, and it's really disappointing. laughingrat's original dissenting post was in no was disrespectful, and the replies should not have been disrespectful; we should be able to have reasonable discussions about these complicated and divisive sexual issues. For those who don't think we should even be discussing people's sexual habits... do you not see the irony there? I think what you really mean to say is we shouldn't be analyzing and questioning sexual practices, just accepting them. THAT is close-minded.
I do understand wear the fear of criticizing BDSM comes from: the ancient, cross-cultural practices of sexual regulation and repression. But we can't let that deter the discussion of/questioning of/critiquing of all of sexuality! Reasoned and respectful analyzation of sex, sexuality, certain sexual practices should be allowed from any framework, be it religious or feminist. As long as the line isn't rashly crossed into censure and restriction, there should be no problem with critique and debate.
So, seriously (and with no condescension intended) let's try to reclaim this thread. From what I can tell, the latter comments are indeed more reasoned and respectful.
And now my opinion, FWIW:
(Just so everyone knows: I think Prof Foxy did a great job with her answer. It wasn't necessary for her, in that context, to discuss all of the feminist questions raised by BDSM: this woman has already made her choice, and Foxy is helping her through it.However, I think it's fair to throw in a few thoughts and questions about BDSM in the comments.)
Personally, I feel that sexuality is influenced immensely by previous personal experience and broader society, and I think *many*(I won't venture a guess at an actual percentage) BDSM desires are a result of the domination and control humans inflict on each other in everyday life. I don't think it's necessarily a NEGATIVE result: if you feel you want to do it, then fine. But I personally feel an obligation to question power dynamics in ALL aspects of my life, including sexual relationships. And I have a lot of submissive tendencies in bed that I fight.
My submissiveness, though, comes from previous abuse; I'm not part of the *many* mentioned above who are primarily influenced by impersonal societal standards (though I'm sure those also play a part). Rather, my fantasies are very specific to previous traumatic experiences, and while they're physically arousing, they're incredibly upsetting emotionally. Therefore, I really feel I need to work to change my sexual tendencies.
Again,although I do think it would benefit people if they asked themselves where their BDSM fantasies came from, I don't think anyone necessarily needs to change, and I'm not asking anyone to.
While I'm at it, I'd like to add one more thing (cause I know everyone is sooo interested in what I have to say):
I think it would be beneficial for people to stop their BDSM practices; not necessarily beneficial for them, but beneficial for society as a whole. I think refusing to engage in any kind of abusive interactions-- even if they're consensual or 'role-play'-- can positively affect society. But then again, I'm an idealist, and I definitely hold everyone (including myself) to a higher standard than most people want to strive for.
I have a major problem with this argument because it could be co-opted by so many different racist, sexist, and homophobic communities.
For example: "I think it would be beneficial for people to stop their homosexual behavior; not necessarily beneficial for them, but beneficial for society as a whole."
Being a member of society is not about not rocking the boat so that society remains stable and positive for a majority. It's about rocking the boat so that everyone has equal rights and privileges within our society, which includes the right to have consensual sex in the manner of our choosing.
I'm a woman not into BDSM. I've never had a sexual fantasy about being submissive to a partner, nor about being dominant. But I also don't believe that just because I love equality in my bedroom as something that gets me off that EVERYONE should follow my example.
When it comes to sex, for me, it begins and ends with consent. Whether or not that consent is something that is influenced by societal values and patriarchy can be discussed, but I also think that treating women as people who couldn't possibly wrap their minds around what they find sexy and why is just as sexist as anything else that patriarchy does.
"When it comes to sex, for me, it begins and ends with consent. Whether or not that consent is something that is influenced by societal values and patriarchy can be discussed, but I also think that treating women as people who couldn't possibly wrap their minds around what they find sexy and why is just as sexist as anything else that patriarchy does."
Sexuality is so complicated, though. Most of us still haven't exactly figured out what it is that makes us the way they are, and that's what questioning and discourse is for. No one has real answers. I don't even have real answers about myself that go outside of my own perspective, education, and reality.
I don't think anyone is treating these women as if they don't know what's best for them. What is best for anyone is relative, and no one here wants to take away whatever jollies these women get in the bedroom. I think people are too ready to believe they are being talked down to, or controlled or censored in some way.
I believe all EG was saying was that in an ideal world, that's how she believes it should be. In an ideal world, I believe we'd shun all forms of violence, and eradicate it and not glorify it or eroticize it as we do and have forever, since it's so impossible so separate sex and power for many.
However, this doesn't mean I want to ban all violent video games, ban all boxing matches, eradicate all BDSM and legislate morality.
Thank you! I'm not sure where ElleStar got the idea that I thought women couldn't comprehend any of the issues surrounding BDSM- hell, we're all thinking and talking about it right now.
And there is a huge difference between trying to restrict people's rights and having a thoughtful discussion about their behavior. Could that be used by homophobes? Sure, and why shouldn't it? Free speech is a great thing, and as long as we use it respectfully, there should be no censure. Debating these issues is what makes society richer, if not better.
So many things that I consider integral to my identity (Woman; Homosexual; Radical Feminist; Apostate; Middle Eastern) are criticized in all kinds of ways: bigoted, oppressive, intelligent, insightful, or just plain old feminist critique. I have to deal with it often, and I've had to examine my identity, my desires, why I identify, what does it mean, why do I like what I like, why do I think like I think, am I even sure of my own conclusions? Etc. and I really have no problem with it, if it is of course not framed in hateful language.
I understand that others may not have had the positive outcomes and experiences I've had when it comes to being criticized. It's always helped me grow, either in acceptance of myself when I defend myself, or evolve and shift perspective when I reflect on someones words that I initially was threatened by.
Perhaps I project, but I just wish that others would not take it as ... someone indicating there is something fundamentally sick or wrong about them every time questions came up.
I am well aware that when someone talks to me about queer sexuality not being innate or fully biological (or ANY sexual orientation being so), it can come within many mindframes. It can be bigoted and telling me I need to change or telling me that because it is not natural in their eyes, it is not good. Or it could just be someone - even another queer person!!11 gasp!! - prodding me to think it over.
And yes, maybe I have already thought it over. I don't think that means they believe me to be intellectually infantile for even suggesting it or trying to engage me in it.
Even my Radical Feminism is something I am forced to turn over and look at - many times understanding that I don't have all of the answers, and that maybe some aspects of the ideology aren't for me, but constantly thinking about it.
Idk, I just don't get the insecurity.
Thank you so much: you put that very well
I also don't get this "I am an island; I am impervious" type of mindset that people think it so audacious and intrepid to even imply that they hold internalized misogynist views or have been influenced by the patriarchy.
It's like when you tell a white liberal that they have latent racism.
I think people just work so hard to fight against these oppressive systems, that they sometimes give themselves too much credit (it's a tiring process, after all) at some point and just STOP for a while, or think that they're somehow 'out of that way of thinking.'
To escape cognitive biases ... that come from not only many societal structures, but also from human compartmentalization, categorization, memory, and natural fallacies/cognitive biases ... to truly overcome bias is something you have to work at your entire life. Deconstructing it is a never ending process. For everyone, even for the feminists criticizing others.
Yes, yes, yes, thank you for saying this. I think it's so important to realize that no matter how hard we fight various destructive systems, we're still always affected by them, in all areas of our life, because it really frees us up of kneejerk defensiveness when people suggest we don't have full agency in constructing our identities.
Accepting that we are all racist and we will all continue to be racist is such an essential starting point for anti-racism - no progress can be made if the implication that one might be a racist shuts down all conversation. And it's the same thing with feminism and internalized misogyny, imo.
Oh, and the "we" who are all racist in my comment are white people. Sorry. My unintended exclusion of POC is telling as to my own ever-present racism.
Can someone explain to me how "I would much rather focus on effects than causes" gets translated into "I am an island?" Because it seems to me something's quite off in that translation.
I don't really think one can understand the effects of things (or prevent them from happening/encourage them) without understanding the cause, at least not to its fullest extent.
The "I am an island" approach to me comes from people finding it audacious that someone would suggest that your choices are not entirely yours, or that you are not affected by the patriarchy/white privilege/class/whatever. It's an approach that, as was said elsewhere on here by Rachel, comes from people assuming that fighting this type of programming is a matter of intelligence, or strength or weakness, when it really isn't about that at all. At least not to me.
You can be more interested in effects than causes, but the refusal to discuss causes at all/to insist that because you've already thought about them previously, it's offensive for people to be suggesting you (or anyone) think about them now, is I think what leads to this image of insecure, defensive people who are more concerned with the sacrosanct nature of their identity than with allowing discussion to flourish, and thinking to expand and progress. (It's flourishing right now, so I don't think that's what you're doing, by the way, but it does appear to me to be what you're arguing for, on the basis of, I gather, critical questions about sexuality in connection with the patriarchy leading to shame? Correct me if I'm mistaken. I personally don't think it's any more shameful to be affected by the patriarchy in every area of our lives than it is to breathe air, so that might be where my personal disconnect comes from.)
Which reminds me, I realized I've never replied to your comment about the "examine!" meme, and I guess one element of it that I'll always disagree with you on is the idea that being somehow bludgeoned into accepting the patriarchy as ONE source (of many) of ALL our impulses and behaviors is wrong. I mean, bludgeoning isn't a great method, of course, but I don't see a problem with the endgame goal of the people asking (general) you to examine and examine and examine being, AT THE VERY LEAST, to get you to acknowledge that every last one of us is inculcated by the patriarchy, in every area of our lives. That's sort of just a bottom line truth that allows for further examination, in any direction, from there. It's not like anyone is saying the patriarchy is the ONE AND ONLY SOURCE of every impulse we have, or that it's bad or dirty or weak or shameful to be affected by it (in that case, every last human being on planet Earth is bad and dirty and weak and shameful), but just that it is a basic truth that we're all affected by it, in this area as surely as in any other. No one is trying to force you to say, with conviction, how much of your kinkiness is patriarchally/societally-induced and how much of it is biological, and how much is some crazy combination in between. That would be IMPOSSIBLE, for ANYONE to know, ourselves individually let alone for someone looking at us from the outside. So your sense that there's only one right answer to radfems asking you to examine yourself is actually correct - it's just, it's not that there's only one right answer re: examinating the sources of our impulses on an individual level, or that there even IS a discernable answer on an individual level. But simply that the answer of "we are all being affected by the patriarchy, right now, in every way, and have been since birth" is frankly undeniable.
And getting back to the original point at hand, I think the "I am an island" perception comes from the persistent idea that saying "our kinks are affected by the patriarchy, just like anything else" is somehow an attack, rather than a simple statement of fact we should hopefully all be able to agree on before moving forward in whatever direction we choose. Whether that direction be towards examining these causes in greater detail, or on focusing on their effects. (And I would say, it's impossible to understand the effects of something without understanding the causes, and generally most people discussing this are FAR more interested in positive, socially-advancing end results than in simply taking apart what makes us all tick, so I'm not even sure I see the distinction between wanting to focus on cause vs. effect, myself.)
Oh, and one last thing while I muddle through this: the reason, to me, that getting that baseline understanding of the patriarchy-affects-us-all-all-the-time down with every woman ever is so important is because I genuinely believe that how we perceive and process the world, as women, affects how we perform as feminists. Changing your thinking on where (one source of) kink come from doesn't, SHOULDN'T, force you to change your behavior sexually, not unless your own conclusions about the place which kink has in your life and in society inspire you to do so. (I deeply, deeply mean this, I hope you know - I mean, once again, I'm into humiliation and degradation myself, and I haven't reached a conclusion that makes me want to give that up.) But being able to think in this never-endingly self-critical way, and directing that style of thinking at every other area of your life, can enable you to change other behaviors that you DO determine are collaborating negatively with the patriarchy. Because once again, at a default level, everything we do collaborates with the patriarchy in varyingly extensive ways. It's why it's SO essential to become aware of that - so we can start choosing where and how to fight, as individuals, completely outside of what men - whom we can't control the way we can control ourselves - do.
By the way, I hope none of this comes across as condescending - I'm not trying to indicate that you aren't aware of the role patriarchy plays in our lives, or that you don't think self-critically; I suppose I'm just repeatedly having trouble understanding why these radfem criticisms strike you as an attack.
Gritsy,
I don't know if you've seen this and just don't agree, but if you haven't, this post of mine is seventy-plus comments explaining exactly why people see this kind of thing as an attack/take it personally. If you're really confused and want to understand, I'd advise you to take some time and sit with this.
http://trinityva.livejournal.com/1000547.html
There's also this one, with some more comments, over at SM-F:
http://sm-feminist.blogspot.com/2009/03/examination-and-lost-tempers.html
I agree with Laughingrat, but I am posting my reply down here because I want to address a number of "arguments" (like, "you're an idiot") I saw in the comments.
Feminist critique of sexuality is not like the religious right's legislation of sexual behavior. So no, examining sex through a feminist lens is not akin to the religious right's policing. I notice people welcome feminist approval of female sexual submission but as soon as there's a dissenting voice, that person is "in your bedroom." Discussing sexual behaviors isn't invasion of your bedroom; don't flatter yourself. Why are you so threatened by a feminist critique of sex on a feminist fucking website?
Yeah, yeah, go on with your bad selves, choosing your choices and telling other feminists to STFU. You're all very empowerful and stuff. Why is the bedroom the one place where feminism isn't welcome? Is your bedroom a magical place free from patriarchy just because you bump uglies in there? This thread is just a bunch of defensive rationalizations. I would not even be so disgusted if you people weren't so knee-jerk assy to the one person who dared to -gasp- disagree on FEMINIST GROUNDS.
THANK you, SarahMC. I was seriously getting distraught and upset because I see this kind of knee-jerk reacting in so many feminist circles these days (I understand that women fought hard to come to where they are in being able to sexually express themselves without shame today, and still have a long way to go, so I understand why there would and SHOULD be cautiousness when it comes to these kinds of discussions, and why women are ready to get defensive), I am feeling so irritable with them.
You worded it so much more eloquently and concisely than I did. I couldn't really express myself properly because I was so annoyed.
Woo! A voice of reason! Thank you, I was starting to feel that feminism just wasn't for me (even though it makes up who I am!) because of the reactions.
Yep – because language like this:
"Yeah, yeah, go on with your bad selves, choosing your choices and telling other feminists to STFU. You're all very empowerful and stuff."
is the epitome of well-reasoned speech and invitation to deeper dialogue.
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
That was in response to the applause for the 'idiot' remark. Yes, she's batting down and taking a stand against that kind of behavior, which DOES contribute to deeper conversation. In fact, a lot of the better ones that took place were because of it, or comments like it (from either side).
And silencing someone by calling them an idiot is unfeminist and disgraceful.
Yep – because language like this:
"Yeah, yeah, go on with your bad selves, choosing your choices and telling other feminists to STFU. You're all very empowerful and stuff."
is the epitome of well-reasoned speech and invitation to deeper dialogue.
It's only condescending and insulting when those gross pro-kink people do it, silly!
""Yeah, yeah, go on with your bad selves, choosing your choices and telling other feminists to STFU. You're all very empowerful and stuff.""
Yep, because that's exactly like calling a pro-kink person 'gross' (why are you projecting this on to us?). And who said I was even anti-kink? In no way do I despise or even dislike kink.
She made fun of the hypocrisy of the importance of choice and agency placed on a community, while telling others to shut up and calling them an idiot when voicing dissent. The same has been said about many radical feminists. It was not an attack at the kink community, but the response on here.
I think the reason I tend to get defensive is that when people start saying things along the lines of "well, but we have to examine the roots of these desires" it assumes that the submissive women have not already done so. That assumption is very insulting. Becoming a BDSM practitioner is a very gut-wrenching experience, and requires, for most, quite a lot of soul-searching. So when I hear, "but why won't people examine the...etc", what I feel is that my intellectual contribution is being discounted, because it somehow doesn't fit. My choice is being left alone, but my intellectual agency has been stripped. In a lot of ways, my intellect is my most prized possession, so it makes me feel far more demeaned than any Dom/me ever has when someone assumes that this isn't something I've thought about in a serious and rigorous fashion.
I understand this. It's not as if all criticism comes in respectful terms. I'm sure you've been talked down to quite a bit. However, there is a LOT of shutting down in feminist circles about this talk. I'd feel the same kind of anger if I was in a radical feminist circle, and everyone was shutting down someone who was trying to explain why BDSM doesn't necessarily have to be this or that, and isn't inherently oppressive, etc.
When people say "but why don't people question/criticize ..." it usually is in the context of when no one is openly discussing these things. No one was here, and one voice of dissent popped up and got attacked for it. It was an echo chamber. No place should ever become an echo chamber, even a place with similar goals a la women's equality.
Well said! Thank you!
The "you're an idiot" comment to laughingrat for voicing an opinion and the 60+ people who liked that comment made me upset.
The 60+ responses are extremely upsetting. Calling soemone an idiot who disagrees should not be tolerated in feminist discussions-it's just another way to invalidate someone, much like calling a woman "ugly" or a "slut". Saying they're an idiot? Same.damn.thing.
I agree. The response to laughingrat comment shows a definite lack of maturity to what I at least consider a serious discussion on a serious feminist site.The fact that the person was cheered on and over 60+ people agree with her rudeness is quite disturbing.
Exactly. I'm still taken aback by it.
And people keep clicking, too. Every time I check back the number is higher. :-/
"Feminist critique of sexuality is not like the religious right's legislation of sexual behavior. So no, examining sex through a feminist lens is not akin to the religious right's policing. I notice people welcome feminist approval of female sexual submission but as soon as there's a dissenting voice, that person is "in your bedroom." Discussing sexual behaviors isn't invasion of your bedroom; don't flatter yourself. Why are you so threatened by a feminist critique of sex on a feminist fucking website?"
Wow, so all that stuff I remember from the '80s Feminist Sex Wars – The Dworkin/MacKinnon Antipornography Ordinance, violent mob attacks on lesbian SM clubs or bookstors that sold porn, Women Against Pornography's public "black letter" campaigns against notable BDSM practitioners like Dorothy Allison, etc, etc – that actually wasn't an attempt to police anyone's sexuality, but simply an attempt to create dialogue and raise consciousness. How foolish and anti-feminist people were for seeing such "critique" as an attempt at coercion and policing.
I don't mean to be rude, but .... the point you are raising is basically taking isolated incidents during a politically-charged atmosphere, grouping them, and using that as a reason to equate all feminist critique of any sexual practices as equal to moral legislation; you are also using such examples to show and rationalize defensiveness, which can be honestly turned and used in any situation.
There were plenty of crimes against those radical feminists during the eighties. There are also plenty of crimes against women by men every day, in far more frequency than a particular point in history where a smaller and more radical group of women used extremist tactics against others, but to use that as a justification to be defensive of anything a man says and to equate everything they say to oppression, because of all of these incidents, is to be seen as narrow-minded, reactionary, and judgmental. Why is it suddenly not when you are doing this based on isolated incidents in history?
People could find scary, sensationalist stories to tell about the kink community. Hell, I've heard enough propoganda against it based on true stories to be able to use ammunition ... but I know that's all it is. Just sensationalism and isolated incidences ... which happen in all human experience, ubiquitously.
Your reply is basically very narrow-minded and off-putting. Those women did great and not so great things, as many people, and saying they speak for all women who want to posit critique on sexuality from their own feminist perspective is akin to saying the racism of many of the founding fathers and philosophers is a reflection of any white person who tries to speak their mind on existentialism or class.
I don't see anyone condoning or applauding the type of behavior that leads to violent mob attacks, or suggesting any policing or legislating. Quit the melodrama.
I'm sorry, but when every somebody blithely asserts that radical feminism isn't about legislating or policing sexuality, the whole history of radical feminism being very much involved in such campaigns, both legal and extra-legal, is the elephant in the room that's being ignored.
And the many of the extreme actions I mention are simply the tip of the iceberg of what radical feminists did back in the Sex Wars era. Considering that some of these actions were carried out by groups and individuals who were central to the radical feminist movement (e.g., the rather shameful actions against Dorothy Allison and others were carried out Women Against Pornography), and the rest of the movement didn't exactly distance themselves from such actions, I'd say such actions implicate the radical feminist movement as a whole. So, no, I'm not buying the "isolated incident" argument.
"There were plenty of crimes against those radical feminists during the eighties."
Such as?
I'm sorry, but the "both sides are guilty" dog doesn't hunt. In particular, when it comes to radfems versus sex-positive feminists or BDSM people, I challenge you to even name one violent incident perpetrated the latter two against radfems. OTOH, I can think of many more violent incidents perpetrated by radfems than I've mentioned here.
And in particular, when it comes to authoritarian legislative strategies, I really think its disingenuous to say that radical feminism isn't about this. The Dworkin/MacKinnon Ordinance was in fact the central focus of radical feminism until the early 90s, when it became clear that such legislation wasn't going to pass. (Though aspects of it did find their way into Canadian law, in ways that were used against LBGT bookstores and publications. Thanks a whole fucking bunch for that legal "dialogue", radfems.) In the UK, radical feminists were a big force behind the criminalization of possession of "extreme" porn. And if you want to get down to a critique of legal structures, jailing people or sanctioning targeted lawsuits against them for non-violent activities is state-sanctioned coercion and barely an improvement against the more extreme mob actions I've mentioned above.
So, yeah, if a significant number of radical feminists at some point actually did make a definitive and public break with the kind of coercive strategies they've come to be associated with, then maybe it would be unfair to dredge this stuff up. But this hasn't happened and I'm certainly not going to sit by and let a bunch of mealy-mouthed rhetoric about "critical" feminists not wanting to police what people do in bed go unchallenged.
"Such as?"
(Ignored my point about crimes against women every day and about racial relations - okay, if you just want to talk directly about the subject at hand, fine)
I want to be clear: The violence and attacks against feminists |radical feminists alike, I in no way implied that 'kinky' people perpetrated any of them. Ammunition against kinky people is to use sensationalist stories about isolated incidents (such as when they hurt each other, horror stories of abuse --- that are apparent in ALL relationships, just like fringe radicals that go too far are apparent in all movements, including the queer movement), though bringing any of it up would be irrelevant, just as bringing up attacks that happened decades ago in pertinence to a comment made that had nothing to do with inciting attack is irrelevant.
I have no choice but to concede if the debate you want to start is "who has directly and outright sought out dirty tactics more against the other", because the radical feminsts have the BDSM group beat out on that. At a time where they thought the very existence of these BDSM groups was threatening to their cause, damaging the hard battle to fight free from patriarchal conditions and have a sexual revolution on THEIR terms, after the oppressive system had somehow been demolished, then it is obvious that some people, motivated by fear (as with all crazy incidents in these sorts of groups) would do shady shit to the people that they could easily do it too, and not to the people, you know, actually oppressing them.
I don't see anyone, as I said, condoning that behavior.
"So, yeah, if a significant number of radical feminists at some point actually did make a definitive and public break with the kind of coercive strategies they've come to be associated with, then maybe it would be unfair to dredge this stuff up. But this hasn't happened and I'm certainly not going to sit by and let a bunch of mealy-mouthed rhetoric about "critical" feminists not wanting to police what people do in bed go unchallenged. "
Mmhm, okay, so everyone has to apologize for what every member of any ideology they belong to has done, either that or they are excusing it. Okay, I apologize on behalf of radically minded feminists everywhere, for crazy assholes that did crazy things. I've mentioned numerous times my disconnect between what I ideologically and politically think and follow, and what I believe should be legislated (hint: almost nothing I ideologically and politically follow).
However, what you are 'challenging' this rhetoric with is basically not addressing the actual things said by these feminists and instead, only extrapolating and associating it with implications of a few prominent individuals in feminist history. As I stated, if you want us to all just apologize for their actions and somehow take responsibility for these individuals and what they chose to do, or outright condemn them, then they are condemned, despite the fact that they have contributed greatly to our cause, too. It's not like I ever cared for the fact that a few radical feminists aligned themselves with the religious right-wing, an even more oppressive cause, historically speaking, than pornography, to try to get these things outlawed.
Tell me: Do you associate anyone who critiques things from a strong black perspective or even has strong beliefs on black identity and white privilege with those 'horrible mean old black nationalists who said and did scary things'? Would you find it appropriate to compare anyone saying that all white people had white privilege and were all raised in a racist perspective to Malcolm X, or some even more extreme version of GASP!! Angela Davis or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson!
I mean, and those aren't even the activists that committed all of those scary scary isolated violence incidents! Would you try to justify shutting them out or thinking they are trying to kill whitey just because the Black Panthers once existed? Riots happened? Etc.?
Because I seriously see people act like that. Ridiculous, isn't it?
So give me a break. Your point is not relevant, unless you think it's fair game to bring up the bad actions of any group and say it somehow represents all individuals who try to critique from the perspective of the group or ideology the individuals belonged to.
.... Aww, who am I kidding!? The jig is up, girls!! This one has us all figured out.
I do, in fact, despise women. There's one thing I despise more than a woman, and that's a woman's choices! Gosh, I feel like my head is going to explode every time a woman makes a choice or does something with her body, ESPECIALLY when it is not something I'd do in her shoes! Geez, it really grinds my gears to see a woman participate in consensual sex! I think sex should be narrowly defined as egalitarian, vertical sex ... no horizontal stuff, that includes someone on bottom! Yep, just equality, or else it's horrible and unfeminist!
I just want to oppress women so badly ! I can't help myself! I want to attack them and limit their choices and make sure they all never do what they want to do, and only do what I want to do! If they don't think like me, they are a bad feminist!
Did I mention I want to get rid of ANYTHING that is not influenced by societal conditioning? Yep, unless it's sleeping, eating, or shitting, I don't want to see it. In fact, I'm going to stop doing about 80% of the things I do, and wanting as much, because I see it all as a product of my upbringing and the world I live in and that means it must always be bad forever in my eyes! That's how I view things.
Oh, and the patriarchy is the only power structure in the world, and is behind everything ever. There is no other type of oppression outside of patriarchal oppression.
Ahh, there. It feels so liberating to take off my mask and reveal the scary villain that lurks beneath! Boogey boo! My name is Missy Andrist, the Strawwoman of your dreams!
/SARCASM
Speaking of dreams, I am done with all of this. Thanks to all of the people I've engaged in discussions with.
Good night!
"There were plenty of crimes against those radical feminists during the eighties. There are also plenty of crimes against women by men every day, in far more frequency than a particular point in history where a smaller and more radical group of women used extremist tactics against others, but to use that as a justification to be defensive of anything a man says and to equate everything they say to oppression, because of all of these incidents, is to be seen as narrow-minded, reactionary, and judgmental. Why is it suddenly not when you are doing this based on isolated incidents in history?"
"Tell me: Do you associate anyone who critiques things from a strong black perspective or even has strong beliefs on black identity and white privilege with those 'horrible mean old black nationalists who said and did scary things'? Would you find it appropriate to compare anyone saying that all white people had white privilege and were all raised in a racist perspective to Malcolm X, or some even more extreme version of GASP!! Angela Davis or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson!
I mean, and those aren't even the activists that committed all of those scary scary isolated violence incidents! Would you try to justify shutting them out or thinking they are trying to kill whitey just because the Black Panthers once existed? Riots happened? Etc.?"
Shorter Nerdisms – the violence inherent in the patriarchy pretty much excuses misguided violence and horizontal hostility carried out by self-proclaimed "dissenters" against that system.
"Shorter Nerdisms – the violence inherent in the patriarchy pretty much excuses misguided violence and horizontal hostility carried out by self-proclaimed "dissenters" against that system."
I love how so many people here are the dumbing down arguments and misconstruing what is being said for the sake of mockery.
Yes, that is exactly what I was saying. Like, to a tee. EXACTLY. Talking about, in a discussion focused on whether or not 'examination' is condescending or oppressive, incidents performed that none of us have any affiliation with nor have condoned or implied that we want to reoccur, how such topics are an attempt to deflect at best, is EXACTLY the same as excusing any violent or oppressive campaign that any feminist has ever carried out against any other individual. Exactly.
Your elementary understanding of my words is obviously purposefully obtuse, just for the sake of mockery. I actually have tons of opinions on why (some) radical feminists attack (I use this word in general terms since not everything that as seen as an attack, such as discourse on here, i see as an attack, but there are things that obviously cannot be denied) what's 'easier' to attack, rather than going for people who threaten them way more, and how many radical feminists don't have a lot of free agency or choice in why they choose for certain people to 'examine' things. They may believe they are zoning in on these people because of reasons that have to do with fighting the patriarchy, but many times I believe it is a distraction from the things they know they can't change/haven't changed yet about the real source of these issues.
Of course, I refrain from getting too into that, and instead say that the violence inherent in the patriarchy pretty much excuses misguided horizontal violence and anything inappropriate, uncalled for, or reprehensible that any feminist has engaged in. Ever. Since that was so totally my original point. GJ, GJ.
Thank God for this comment. I was getting really, really frightened by how many people approved of that "you're an idiot" comment -- and how few until yours called it out as antifeminist and deliberately blind to activities in which feminist issues obviously adhere.
Every day I get closer and closer to stop identifying as a feminist. It's not that I don't have feminist beliefs -- it's that I am sick of attitudes like the ones I saw up there in response to laughingrat's comment.
Seriously, people? Can somebody tell me why the hell ANYTHING is sacrosanct from critical thinking, discussion, and analyzing? This is pathetic.
She voiced dissent. Immediately she was called an idiot. Immediately people were saying she was trying to control their lives, to be condescending, yet they were not even letting her voice an opinion of opposition. Her opinion, if you read closely, is not even in opposition to women submitting in general. A woman's choice is a woman's choice, and no matter how much I disagree with it, I will never want to take it away from her.
I am certain laughingrat feels the same.
Now, tell me, why is it that some choices cannot even be thought about critically by others? Why are women supposed to be suddenly exempt from all criticism? If someone wants to think about the society your 'preferences' exist in (I use scarequotes with preferences because people act as if they are some natural thing that they can't ever help EVER!!11), the framework within where your choices exist, and think about the agency you have and wants to define empowerment differently than you do, what the heck is wrong with that? If she was outright saying it was WRONG, or that women should NOT EVER be getting off sexually to submission, I could understand the kneejerk reactions.
It seems that people are all for turning ideas over in their head until it comes to things that self serve them. No one is oppressing your sexuality just by questioning why you would want to submit. In fact, the majority of the world thinks you should submit, so it's not like that person questioning you has some ridiculous amount of social power over you. It's just someone thinking.
I think everyone can agree that what two people consent to is between them. I think that, which means I don't have the right to stop them, to think they should be punished for it, or to think they should go to jail for it or get therapy or whatever. However, it doesn't mean I can't think of what context it exists in, correlate it with other frequencies of 'preferences' in sex that people have, and turn the idea over in my head.
Give me a break, people. The bedroom is not a magical place where the world floats away and doesn't affect anything you do. It's a safespace where you should be free to do what you want with consent, yes, but it is not some place that makes you impervious to any societal or cultural influences.
Boohoo, someone says that not everything you like or want is the result of you 'just wanting it' or 'liking it out of nowhere', and thinks it comes from the bigger picture we exist in. You aren't a special snowflake :( How sad! Call that person an idiot! Say she is condescending and oppressing you!
Except that person admits that we ALL live in that world, and that the same applies to them, too.
You know, philosophers never started to cry and whine when their realities were suggested to not be very real or not be very 'theirs' at all.
With all of that being said: I think the OP that Professor Foxy replied to should never stop thinking about why she likes what she likes and challenging her preferences. However, she should also NOT feel ashamed or guilty to like it. Even if it WAS the result of social conditioning, as long as it is safe and consensual, she should take joy in the happiness it gives her, and respect her desires and love herself.
No matter what your politics are, always be open to change, but also know that you are only human. There is no way to escape certain things. The best you can do is find respectful people who will care for you and consider your will and choice when they are engaging in such things with you. Don't feel ashamed.
Thank you! You nailed everything I'm thinking on the head. Such harsh, insulting responses make me too want to leave this feminist community.
I've noticed that more and more people are voicing their disapproval of BDSM and I just want to try to explain my point of view, because I think it's hard to understand these fantasies if you've never had them yourself.
I'm a sexually submissive woman and I have had fantasies about bondage since I was at least five years old. I specifically remember becoming aroused when I thought about the climbing rope on my playground. So when people say that I'm choosing to be this way or that I should just stop fulfilling my fantasies for the good of society it really offends me. I really think it's very similar to people saying that homosexuality conflicts with their religious beliefs so it shouldn't be practiced by anyone. It's a part of who I am, and fulfilling my fantasies is something that makes me happy. I used to be ashamed of my fantasies and thought that I was a bad person, but when I started experimenting with them I realized that it's just something fun that I enjoy and it's ultimately been the most sexually empowering thing I've ever done.
I grew up in a very liberal, very feminist household. I've never been sexually or physically abused in any way and I find it very troubling that people like to jump to that conclusion.
For me, being tied up or spanked or whatever is arousing for a lot of reasons and none of them have anything to do with gender. I consider myself heterosexual, and most of my vanilla fantasies involve men. However, my BDSM fantasies involve being dominated by both men and women - for me it's wholly disconnected from gender.
It's exciting to let go of control, because I never know what's going to happen. BDSM isn't about torture it's about pleasuring the submissive partner in ways that they've never experienced before. I'm a perfectionist, so after a long day of stressing out at school/work it's a relief to let my partner take control and pleasure me.
Feminism is welcome in my bedroom and I think that BDSM practices are very feminist friendly despite many people's assumptions. More than any other fetish, BDSM is all about consent, because it has to be. The minute the submissive partner stops enjoying it, the scene stops, no questions asked. My boyfriend dominates me sexually, because we both really enjoy it. And I return the favor by bending him over and dominating him from time to time. He's also the most respectful, feminist man I know.
So the next time you consider saying that you know where people's sexual desires come from or you know that they need to stop, consider how you would feel if people told you that your sexuality is perverse and you shouldn't be allowed to explore your sexual desires.
I think, as a lesbian, may of the sexual practices I engage in with women that are penetrative and domineering are influenced from outside forces, even if I had fantasies since I was pretty young about such things. I don't like where a lot of my desires come from. However, when I filter them into the bedroom, and turn it into about pleasure, emotions, and respect, I feel it is okay.
I am willing to accept, though, that what I like isn't just always going to be some natural thing that popped up out of nowhere. I also am willing to accept that I could be happy without it, or if I had been raised differently I'd have slightly different desires, and still be okay and still be me in many other ways.
This isn't to say that you should do that. Do what you want. I seriously, as a pretty radical feminist, don't want to take that right away from you, or think you are wrong in any way whatsoever for doing it, as long as people are not seriously getting injured or if it is against their will.
However, I can think about your actions and thinking, if you put them out there for me to opinionate on, and even think critically about them.
My rules go both ways, I guess. If I am wrong, or you feel I am going off of assumptions or do not know you well enough, you either tell me so, or diverge information that proves me wrong. Either that, or if I'm making you uncomfortable, you ask if the discussion can end. I feel I have the right to do the same if someone is making statements on my sexuality that I feel to either be untrue, or discomforting.
I think that you can think BDSM is feminist if you want. I don't think all of it is, and that's okay if we disagree. I also don't want you to stop, and will not assume you were abused. But please, tell me where people were saying that others who practice BDSM need to stop, or that they 100% know where these desires come from.
I'm told every day that my sexuality is perverse, on a much more intimate level, since it is not just how I have sex. It is who I want to have sex with, and whom I feel romantic love for, too.
I used to jump and get angry when people said sexuality was a choice. Now I don't. Because I've taken in other perspectives. I still haven't come to my own conclusions about why exactly I like women, what exactly my thoughts and feelings are on it, and if I could ever like a man. And that's no longer threatening to me.
It's threatening when people tell me I'm sick or wrong or abnormal or somehow lesser and want to take away what makes me happy.
But i don't think people are doing that here.
Thanks for answering respectfully. I'd like to respond to a few of your statements.
"I think that you can think BDSM is feminist if you want"..."I also don't want you to stop." While I know you weren't trying to sound condescending, the way you worded it makes it seem like you're giving me permission and frankly I wasn't asking for it because I can make my own choices.
You asked where people were saying people who practice BDSM need to stop:
EGhead wrote
"I think it would be beneficial for people to stop their BDSM practices; not necessarily beneficial for them, but beneficial for society as a whole."
To me EGhead is clearly saying that for the good of society I need to stop my sexual practices.
And you asked where people said they know where my desires come from:
becstar wrote
"Given the influence of the patriarchy it is not all surprising that the majority of submissives of female because we are brought up to believe that that is our proper role. Exactly where does that lie with your consent theory?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me becstar is implying that females are submissive sexually because they are taught to be and that as a result they can't really consent.
I interpreted EG's statement differently ... but I do understand how that could be hurtful. If something that brings you happiness is asked to be done away with, that can get on personal and uncomfortable grounds.
I would also like to elaborate with myself up there: I said that I did not believe that a lot of BDSM is, but I also did not mean to invalidate if you believed that your practices were feminist. I think that has merit and can see your point of view. I just meant, as a whole, not all BDSM is feminist of course, just like as a whole vanilla certainly isn't.
I think that, with what becstar said (and I could be projecting my own beliefs into this interpretation, only SHE knows what she meant I guess), is that that can explain most of the cases of female sexual submission.
I do think that it does. Now, hear me out. I don't think that means submissiveness in sexuality (as in, CHOOSING to be submissive, CHOOSING to give up power in only the context of a bedroom, which is not the same as submissiveness all around) in general can only be the result of male domination (there are plenty of lesbian submissives, too), or that it's all just brainwashing.
However, it's hard to know what makes our desires. Within the context of what we live in, most things we like, do, and want to appear as are not only the result of patriarchal conditions but other societal and structural powers feeding, selling, and packaging images and tastes on to us (the patriarchy is not the only oppressive system, of course). Now, this doesn't mean free choice and free will cannot exist, and it doesn't mean that all choices made come from exactly the same source (human individuality is too varied for that).
It does mean, though, that the choices and tastes we have are still limited. We live in a world with very limited choices, so it can be argued that many of the choices we make are still not entirely free, because we could only be making them because we lack other options and perspective.
I would hope that she did not mean that the only reason any woman is ever submissive sexually or enjoys sexual submission from time to time is because of the patriarchy.
I guess this is just my own interpretation of it. And thank you for being respectful, too :) If anything I say rubs you the wrong way, please feel free to tell me. I really don't want to step over any boundaries.
Yes society has a big influence on people. And you say that because of this our choices are limited. But what are you trying to prove exactly? Are you saying that women are sexually submissive because society teaches them to be this way and they don't have any other choice? I certainly don't feel that that's the case for me, simply because of the community in which I was raised and the fact that my desires involve both men and women.
I don't think it's fair to take a group of people (those involved in BDSM) and try to generalize the cause of their desires, which you did when you said that becstars argument explains most of the cases of female sexual submission. Not everything about one's personality and preferences is a product of societal pressures.
Can't I just enjoy the thrill of letting go of control simply because it's exciting and the act of trusting someone brings me closer to them?
And even if society does have an influence on people's desires what does that prove exactly? If people are thoughtful about their desires and only fulfill them in ways that are healthy for them and their partner then what difference does it make?
"Yes society has a big influence on people. And you say that because of this our choices are limited. But what are you trying to prove exactly? Are you saying that women are sexually submissive because society teaches them to be this way and they don't have any other choice? I certainly don't feel that that's the case for me, simply because of the community in which I was raised and the fact that my desires involve both men and women."
I do think you are misinterpreting me. I mean to say that everything we like, from the shoes and fashion we like to wear, to the food we like, to people we like, exists within a society of limited choices; moreso for women than men, but it applies to everyone. We also live in an image-based society. If it is not religion or governments or stigma dictating what we should and should not like, it is something else, such as the media and the way we have these things shaped and sold to us from a young age. The kinds of women I like, the kinds of things turn me on, exist in a world where I still have limited realistic choices of the women I could pursue, the sexual fantasies I could indulge in safely.
I am not interested in girls that I perceive to be stereotypically 'straight.' Is this because it's just my personal taste and I like girls that wear less make up, flannel shirts, and shorter haircuts more, or is it because I have coded in my mind to see make up and acrylics and skirts as 'straight', and therefore more off limits, not within my realm of comfort in desiring ?
I have no clue, really. While we have choices, and should celebrate these choices and respect them, women still exist in a world where the choices they make might be because they don't have other choices, or have been influenced. Men also are influenced, too.
"I don't think it's fair to take a group of people (those involved in BDSM) and try to generalize the cause of their desires, which you did when you said that becstars argument explains most of the cases of female sexual submission."
But I did not say that. I said that it could be an explanation for female sexual submission within the realms of the PATRIARCHY, not that it explains most female cases of sexual submission. In a patriarchal world, someone putting forward the theory that women sexually submit because of societal conditioning is putting forth a plausible explanation, but one that can ultimately never be tested in reality, because there is no place that is not patriarchal.
I think even women who like women are subject to this. This isn't just the BDSM community I am talking about. I could also be talking about heterosexuality in general; what if I were to say I believed that if we did not live in such a heterosexist and gender essentialist world, less people would be heterosexual, or feel the need to stick with a label? Does that mean that I am saying that people who identify as heterosexual or definitive ANYTHING are somehow only fooling themselves? Not so.
"And even if society does have an influence on people's desires what does that prove exactly? If people are thoughtful about their desires and only fulfill them in ways that are healthy for them and their partner then what difference does it make?"
I said that as long as you are happy and find it fulfilling and there is no real psychological or emotional harm being done, it is not wrong. These things are subjective. Thinking about it, thinking critically about these things, I just feel, is for me. It's not for everyone. I just don't want to be called an idiot for thinking about these things, or oppressive, any more than someone doing whatever they want in the bedroom wants to be called sick or wrong.
I am not providing a better alternative in ACTION when it comes to your bedroom. I think, in thought and for critique reasons, thinking about these things is good and helps things from stagnating into blind oppression or blind acceptance. It does not mean that I think the actions of these people should change. I honestly don't see it as harmful or bad in any way.
That's your interpretation of my comment was right: I think it would have a positive impact on your immediate social circle if you stopped BDSM. There are a lot of things I think people should do that would be great for society: be vegetarians, plant trees, not pee on the toilet seat.
But I'm not TELLING anyone to do anything (well, except the pee on the seat thing). Hell, I'm not even asking them. But I'm letting them know that I think it would be good and why, and if they want to make that decision, great. If they don't, well... it's not like I expect great things from humanity. Small steps.
We ALL have things we think others should do, and there's no harm in discussing them.
Your interpretation of my comment was right: I think it would have a positive impact on your immediate social circle if you stopped BDSM. There are a lot of things I think people should do that would be great for society: be vegetarians, plant trees, not pee on the toilet seat.
But I'm not TELLING anyone to do anything (well, except the pee on the seat thing). Hell, I'm not even asking them. But I'm letting them know that I think it would be good and why, and if they want to make that decision, great. If they don't, well... it's not like I expect great things from humanity. Small steps.
We ALL have things we think others should do, and there's no harm in discussing them.
Actually it would have absolutely no impact on my immediate social circle, because I have never told anyone I know that I like to be submissive in the bedroom. Except for my boyfriend, who likes to be submissive as well.
Talking on this comment board is the first time I've even really discussed it outside of the bedroom. Mostly because I was assuming that people here wouldn’t be insensitive and judgmental enough to say my private preferences are a detriment to society.
Do you really think people's private sexual practices have such a huge impact on the people around them? Most people who practice BDSM do not go around parading about it and telling everyone they know that it's the best thing in the world that everyone should do. For most people, it's an extremely personal thing that they do in private that really doesn't affect other people because other people don't know about it.
You have to understand that this is not a personal attack on YOU or what YOU do, so please don't feel singled out. I can definitely see why it's upsetting, but, frankly, it would be more upsetting if I were to avoid these critiques altogether to spare your feelings. I think doing it in a polite, level-headed way should be enough.
A boyfriend IS part of one's immediate social circle (I'll use one to avoid the whole 'you' thing). I'll give you an example: Say a woman asks her boyfriend to tie her up and spank her. They're both into it; that's fine. But what does he take from that into his next relationship? What do they both take from that into the world and their interactions with other people?
I don't mean to diminish the agency of any of the actors in question, but we have to be aware that any kind of violence or domination, acted out in any sphere of our lives, can have at least subtle impacts on our interactions with others, and THEIR interactions with others, and so on and so forth.
Is is a personal attack on me when you say: "I think it would have a positive impact on your immediate social circle if you stopped BDSM."
And to answer your question of what I think my boyfriend will take into his next relationship:
I think he will have learned that it is mutually satisfying for two people in a respectful committed relationship to listen to each others desires and to fulfill those desires in a healthy, consenting manner.
And you're neglecting the point that my boyfriend enjoys submitting as well. He understands and respects my fantasies because he has them himself. So I don't see how the acts we both choose to do for each other's pleasure will have a negative impact on our future relationships.
Well, I'm sorry if you still find it to be a direct insult against you. There's really nothing more I can say about that; knowing that my opinions upset you personally doesn't change the beliefs behind them.
And I think you're missing the point of my response: I was just giving you an example; reverse the genders of the participants if you want to, it's all the same (well, mostly the same... but I'm not going to get into gender and power dynamics).
Of course BDSM relationships, like any other relationships, can have positive impacts on people- understanding how to listen to others in the bedroom is one of those positives. But it is simply being blind to only consider the obvious, conscious repercussions of our interactions and environment. If you consider the ephemeral microsociological repercussions I keep referring to-- which few people on the thread seem to be willing to actually do-- and you still feel the same way, then fine. Even if you DON'T consider these things or deny they exist... again, fine. You are totally free to do whatever you want in your bedroom and, as I have repeatedly said, there's nothing I can do nor WANT to do about that.
And I am well aware that BDSM activities and relationships vary wildly. I'm not saying that all microsociological effects of the various relationships are even similar, or that EVERY BDSM relationship is negative (which is why, again, this is not about YOU). I'm simply saying that, on the whole, these things are negative.
Finally, I'd appreciate it if everyone on this thread stopped comparing BDSM to homosexuality. BDSM is not a sexual orientation; it is not parallel. I still appreciate the point you're trying to make: that you can't help your sexual desires, and therefore no one should critique them. Whether or not people can change what turns them on (which is different from the gender that turns them on) is certainly up to debate. Again, I'm not saying you should even try. I'm saying that, ideally, people would not engage in BDSM because it is harmful to society.
I think the reason that I'm reacting so personally to your comments is because you state "BDSM is harmful to society" as if it's a proven fact. It's simply a personal opinion that you hold not based in any sort of evidence.
And you keep saying that you respect people's individual choices and recognize that everyone is different, but that's simply not true when you continually state as a blanket statement that society would be better if no one practiced BDSM. You're simply failing to recognize that BDSM is not the same for everyone who practices it.
Please don't say that I'm being blind and completely ignoring the possible repercussions of my actions. Having submissive fantasies can be a very confusing thing and I spent years thinking about the implications of them. I ultimately came to terms with my fantasies and decided that fulfilling them can be a positive thing for me.
Also I think it's important for you to re-read the original question that was written to Prof Foxy. This woman clearly has thought a lot about her desires and the possible causes for them and she has feelings of guilt that she's trying to overcome. Statements like yours will only cause people to feel unnecessary shame over desires that are beyond their control.
"I think the reason that I'm reacting so personally to your comments is because you state "BDSM is harmful to society" as if it's a proven fact. It's simply a personal opinion that you hold not based in any sort of evidence."
Yes... or if it is based in evidence, that evidence is personal experience.
I don't doubt that for some people, an attraction to submission is damaging. Some people do want pain or surrender because they believe these things to be bad, and think they don't deserve better. I encourage such people to work on trusting themselves more, and if being healthier emotionally means the kinky fantasies are replaced with something else, that's good.
What I don't think is true is that someone knowing for sure that HER kinky fantasies are the result of abuse or harm means knowing that ALL such are. Or even that knowing that HER kinky activities are a horrible coping device means knowing that they are a similarly horrible coping device for somebody else.
Seriously making the claim that we'd be better off without kink, just as the person for whom kink is unquestionably bad would, requires far more thorough argumentation than I've seen given here.
One more thing:
You say that it's not a personal attack, but if it's not and instead you're lumping all people who enjoy BDSM into one group, then you're just ignoring the fact that every individual is different and has different sexual desires and practices. Everyone's sexual choices/desires are made for different reasons and for you to say that one type of act, namely power play, is inherently harmful to society is just as judgmental as saying that homosexual acts are inherently harmful to society.
Yes, it would be beneficial if some people stopped BDSM, meaning those people who are not mature or respectful enough to realize that it's just a fantasy. But you said that it's selfish for anyone to practice BDSM and I'm sorry but I think that's a very close-minded view that ignores the subtleties of individual choice and responsibility.
"A boyfriend IS part of one's immediate social circle (I'll use one to avoid the whole 'you' thing). I'll give you an example: Say a woman asks her boyfriend to tie her up and spank her. They're both into it; that's fine. But what does he take from that into his next relationship? What do they both take from that into the world and their interactions with other people?"
But why is what he takes from that "all women