------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
With the-film-that-must-not-be-named coming out next weekend, I feel the need to once again write about BDSM. While I hope that the general public is not thrilled at the thought of women being beaten, whipped or having knives held against their throats (the BDSM community calls this "knife play"), mainstream culture tends to be biased in favour of BDSM.
For example, in the United States, the aforementioned "film" (or rather, pornographic video) received an R-rating
(the rough equivalent of an Australian MA15+ rating), not for depictions of extreme
violence, but for “unusual sexual activity”. This description matches the BDSM
community’s claim that their behaviours are “strange” and “subversive”, rather
than violent or aggressive. The word “violence” is also missing from the
Australian classification. Meanwhile films (even PG-rated ones) that feature people
being whipped or beaten in other contexts are always labelled as featuring
“violence”. So why make an exception for physical aggression that is considered
sexual?
In any case, the less that is said about the film
the better. So here are my responses to the five most common arguments put
forward by defenders of BDSM.
-
1. BDSM is Consensual (and therefore acceptable)
-
1. BDSM is Consensual (and therefore acceptable)
This is the most common argument made by defenders
of BDSM (hence it appears first on this list). Some proponents even admit that
consent is the only thing which distinguishes BDSM from abuse.
In reality, BDSM is not always completely consensual. Sometimes people are pressured into such activities by their partners, other times there are economic incentives involved. This is clearly the case within the sex industry, but economics can also play a role within relationships, especially in cases where women are dependent on their partners’ incomes. There are also situations in which outright force is used to make people participate or continue participating in BDSM (e.g. a dominant may ignore the safe words used by a submissive and continue to inflict violence upon them).
In reality, BDSM is not always completely consensual. Sometimes people are pressured into such activities by their partners, other times there are economic incentives involved. This is clearly the case within the sex industry, but economics can also play a role within relationships, especially in cases where women are dependent on their partners’ incomes. There are also situations in which outright force is used to make people participate or continue participating in BDSM (e.g. a dominant may ignore the safe words used by a submissive and continue to inflict violence upon them).
I recognise that some people do consent to being
sexually submissive, but even then I do not view BDSM as morally acceptable. While
many people apply the “anything-goes-if-you-have-consent” viewpoint to sex,
few apply it to other topics, like economics. Only the most hard-core, economic
libertarians believe that it is acceptable for bosses to order workers to labour
for more than 12 hours a day, while receiving far less than the minimum wage
and being in danger of severe injury or death. Some workers, especially in the
third world, agree to such conditions, but no decent leftist endorses such exploitation
and neither do I.
By rejecting the BDSM community’s consent argument,
I am not being biased against sex. I am being consistent. So if my moral
standard or “litmus test” (to borrow a term from an email I recently received) for
sexual activities is not consent alone, then what is it? Read on to find out.
2. BDSM is Sexually Arousing (or otherwise pleasurable)
This second pro-BDSM argument is often used in
conjunction with the first one. Since one cannot know for sure whether their
partner is experiencing sexual arousal (women, in particular, often fake
orgasms in order to please their partners), such arousal cannot be a reliable standard
for evaluating sexual behaviours.
However, it is unlikely that every person who claims
to be aroused by their partner’s sexual dominance is lying. Some people do experience
pleasurable sensations in response to aggressive acts committed against them, but
does this justify such aggression? In spite of what liberals and hedonists may
insist, I am not against sexual pleasure or physical pleasure generally. I do,
however, recognise that some things are more important than physical pleasure and
therefore should not be compromised to obtain it.
This brings me back to the “litmus test” I mentioned
earlier. The test I use when discussing sexual activities is the same one I use
to make ethical judgements in other situations. I believe that we should aim
for a world in which humans treat one another like equals. Relations marked by
inequalities in power ( those that involve dominance and submission) should
be avoided whenever possible, within the realms of politics, economics,
culture and personal interactions.
While getting consent and aiming to provide pleasure,
rather than pain, are part of treating someone like an equal, such things are
generally not viewed by radical leftists as an excuse to maintain power
inequalities. An apparently benevolent dictator, who is adored by the populace,
is still a dictator. A boss, who is polite and understanding towards their
workers, is still a boss. Leftists (especially radical leftists) do not trust such people when they claim
that they are exercising their dominance for the benefit of those being
dominated, even if the latter experience pleasure, or some other reward (e.g.
wealth), as a result of being dominated. So why should those who regularly exercise
sexual dominance get a free pass? If power corrupts, then it probably corrupts
BDSM dominants too.
3. BDSM does not always involve Men dominating Women
For these last three arguments, there may be some
debate over which is the most common, so feel free to disagree with the order I
have put the arguments in. I hear this argument very often, but that may be
because I often read blog posts that oppose BDSM from a feminist perspective (like this one.)
The mere existence of female dominants is not proof
that gender indoctrination has no influence on the roles that males and females
play within BDSM. Unless the BDSM community can show that male and females are
equally represented in both dominant and submissive roles, I am not impressed. I
believe that the practice of BDSM and its growing prevalence within mainstream
culture are the result several hierarchical systems, including male dominance
over females, capitalism and white supremacy.
However, even if BDSM were not related to any political,
economic or social hierarchy, it still would not be consistent with my belief
in equality. True egalitarianism is not about fighting for a world in which
everyone has an equal chance to be dominant. It is about creating a world in
which there is no such thing as a dominant group or person. Feminist opponents
of BDSM do not want to make the role of the sexual dominant more accessible to
women or any other group. They want the role to be abolished, the same way
communists want the capitalist and worker roles abolished.
The existence of “switches” (people who “switch”
between dominant and submissive roles) is also used to defend BDSM, but two
people taking turns to play anti-egalitarian roles is not the same thing as an
egalitarian relationship. The fact that a person has previously behaved in a
sexually dominant manner does not change the fact that the person is being
submissive in the present and vice versa, nor does an act of dominance somehow
counteract an act of submission. If a man rapes a woman, should she rape him in
return? Would that somehow make up for him raping her? It may result in some
twisted form of “equality”, but this is not the kind of equality that we should
aim for.
4. Opposing BDSM is like opposing Gay
Rights
As a leftist, I am expected to be opposed to
prejudice against gays and lesbians, thus I probably encounter this argument
more often than conservatives opponents of BDSM do. Since this blog is aimed at
leftists and feminists, I think the target audiences encounters this argument often
enough for it to be included in this list.
I oppose homophobia, but not for “sex liberal” reasons.
Simply put, my support for gay rights is not based on the assumption that all
sexualities are equally acceptable. I support gay rights because, unlike BDSM
activities, sexual encounters and relationships between two people of the same
biological sex do not necessarily involve power inequalities. This does not
mean that people in gay and lesbian relationships always treat one another like
equals. Unfortunately, gays and lesbians often take on the same dominant and
submissive roles that heterosexuals are encouraged to adhere to. It is however
possible to participate in straight, gay or lesbian sexual activities without
taking on such roles.
The same is not true for BDSM, since dominance and
submission are part of its very definition. Since dominance and submission are
the very opposite of equality, it is not logically possible for BDSM to be practiced
in an egalitarian manner. People who are into BDSM may treat each other like
equals in other situations (though full time BDSM practitioners do not even do
that), but the practice itself can never be egalitarian, any more than a triangle
can be a circle.
Liberal support for BDSM is probably a result of
liberals adhering to a definition of “equality” which is different from that
usually used by political radicals. Liberals believe that equality means granting
all behaviours (and thus all people) an equal amount of social approval. Money and
other sources of power (e.g. political office) are significant in the eyes of
liberals only because they indicate social approval. Radical feminists,
however, care less about approval and more about preventing people (particularly
men) from exercising power over others (particularly women). The liberal notion
of equality seems rather cowardly and conformist (i.e. overly concerned with
the opinions of others) and thus is not the kind of “equality” I fight for.
5. BDSM is about Love and Trust
This is the last and least common (though still
pretty common) argument that I will address in this article. If there are any
others you want me to take on, please let me know in the comment section.
-
The idea that people in BDSM relationships love each other sounds sweet, until you remember that those who make this argument are attempting to justify brutal and often physically dangerous acts of aggression. I guess the idea is that the submissive must really love and trust the dominant, otherwise they would not be allowing the dominant to do potentially dangerous things to their body, but is that really the kind of “love and trust” we want to promote? The kind where you perceive someone as faultless and blindly do whatever they say? Is that not the kind of “love” that dictators and cult leaders promote among their followers? You can call it “love” and “trust” all you want, but that does not make it healthy.
-
The idea that people in BDSM relationships love each other sounds sweet, until you remember that those who make this argument are attempting to justify brutal and often physically dangerous acts of aggression. I guess the idea is that the submissive must really love and trust the dominant, otherwise they would not be allowing the dominant to do potentially dangerous things to their body, but is that really the kind of “love and trust” we want to promote? The kind where you perceive someone as faultless and blindly do whatever they say? Is that not the kind of “love” that dictators and cult leaders promote among their followers? You can call it “love” and “trust” all you want, but that does not make it healthy.
Abusive men sometimes claim that their violent acts are
done out of “love” and tell their partners that if they really loved them they
would not leave the relationship. BDSM dominants (whether they are actually
guilty of abuse or not) reinforce these claims by labelling their aggressive
and dominating acts, as well as their partner’s willingness to submit to them,
as “love”.
Our society demands that women be ever-loving and
self-sacrificing, while men are permitted to be sex-crazed and self-interested,
even within relationships. Both “ideals” are harmful (whether they are embraced
by males or by females) and BDSM takes the first, rather conservative, ideal to
its extreme. Instead of focussing on how a “good” romantic partner should be
full of love and trust, we should be encouraging people, especially men, to
demonstrate to their partners that they are worthy of trust. Healthy trust is a
response to trustworthy behaviour, but I will have more to say about this in a future
post.
For now I will leave you with a warning. Though genuine
love can be a beautiful thing, we live in a society that celebrates dominance, submission
and a distorted version of love, marked by such dynamics. Our culture tells us not
to think too hard about love. Radicals recognise that the things we are told
not to think about are the things we should think about the most. It is
important for feminists and other progressives to encourage discussion about
what love is and is not. Healthy, egalitarian love should be promoted in place
of blind infatuation, for the latter leads to blind obedience and thus
reinforces hierarchical power relations.
Conclusion
While I
have not addressed every argument made to defend BDSM, I suspect that most
other pro-BDSM arguments are variations of the ones listed here. In fact, many
are based on the same, sex liberal assumptions (e.g. “all consensual sexual
activities are acceptable”, “all moral judgements regarding sex are oppressive”,
etc.)
The
ethical standards I have discussed in this article can be used to critique
conservative views regarding sexual relationships, as well as other practices
promoted by “sex-positive”, liberal feminists such as prostitution, pornography
use and extreme beauty practices. So readers can expect to see these standards
invoked again and again in future articles.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My plan for my next three
articles is to write a mini-series discussing egalitarian sex and
relationships. The world needs it, given the influence of you-know-what
franchise.
