Let's do the time warp again

I was just doing research and rediscovering a particularly icky anti-SM article from way back in 1993, "Sadomasochism and Exclusion" by Lorena Leigh Saxe.

Its topic: How best to go about, if possible, excluding leatherdykes from a festival whose identity she hides by abbreviating it, uh, what was that now?

MWMF.

I'm not sure, knowing now what I didn't know back in 2001 or so when I first read Saxe's article (that MWMF now allows leatherdykes but excludes transwomen), whether to laugh, cry, hit things, or just marvel at the fact that certain sorts of feminist never change.

One part of the article that sticks out at me is the way she describes subspace (at least, I think what she's doing is misreading people's reports of what subspace is like):

Masochists in these stories use the violence directed at them to escape their feelings of powerlessness in the world by being pushed so far by pain that they become disoriented, unable to think and unable to feel. This temporary inability to feel is often mentioned in these stories as the goal of sexual activity and is considered in many stories to be a positive way of escaping from the dreariness and pain of one's everyday life. (63)

1. Unable... to... feel?

*blink* *blink*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*ahem*

2. Emo dyke is emo. "Escaping from the dreariness and pain of one's everyday life?" Why is it that radical feminists are so excited about the idea that they understand how best to respect women and really hope for their flourishing (both mentioned in the article), yet always sound like they're writing gothic novels or long-lost, womon-centered NIN lyrics? Are you SURE your last name is "Hoagland" and not "Reznor"? :)

Oh wait, no, he was all about that ICKY SM STUFF. Nah, yer just emo. Cheer up, emo dyke!

Another fun quote from funland:

[F]eminism is considered by sadomasochists to be so tiring and complicated that feminism itself is one of the things that masochists used pain and humiliation to escape. One story, for example, involves a woman who is just returning from a National Women's Association conference, where she had to act respectfully and thoughtfully, and who now needs the numbing pain of sadistic abuse against her to free her from feminism's constraints. (65)

Okay, I no longer ID with the label, myself, so maybe I'm one of those irresponsible fun-loving harlots who would rather have fun than be serious OMG OMG. But really? Bullshit like this is why.

She "had to act respectfully and thoughtfully" and then ran away from it? How much more disrespect could you pack into one sentence, O Expert On Respecting Lesbians Properly? If you really think you've got the key to proper feminist respect, you might start by assuming that the women you're discussing (okay, so that one is a character in a work of fiction, but still) are adults.

And then you want us out of MWMF? (It gets weirder; she suggests stations to "help" masochists "physically separate themselves from sadists and the s/m community" (72) so that they can "escape" from SM if they want to.)

Gee, I wonder why I've never had anything remotely resembling a desire to go to MWMF ever even though there's a Zone for us evil troublemakers who must be cordoned off from the sensitive loving wimmin.

Yeah. Uh, no. Old article is old, but... well, wow.

And why does it not surprise me to now know that MWMF is still "dealing" with issues of who to exclude, rather than seeing the kind of thinking that leads to excluding some women as the problem?

Anyway, I've got work to do now, and I should allow you all to e-separate from me now in case you need safe space to convene without a top. ;)

Polymorphous Perversity: On the UK's new pornography law

More on the UK law, this from a legal perspective (but by a USian as well)

Polymorphous Perversity: On the UK's new pornography law

The UK has now passed a law to criminalize the possession of "violent" and "extreme" pornography. A mother who blamed her daughter's murder on pornography involving strangulation campaigned for the law. You can read the language of the law here, you may also find of interest this website, of a group opposing the law. The most pertinent language is this: covered material includes material that "explicitly and realistically" depicts "an which which threatens a person's life," or "an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals."

It strikes me that the terms "threatens a person's life," "likely to result," and "serious injury" make it possible to interpret this law as criminalizing large chunks of BDSM pornography, i.e., material that is produced by and for consenting adults and that (though it may technically fit the above definition) when understood in context, is not intended to be viewed as depicting and does not otherwise promote actual violence. Examples: erotic knifeplay, simulated choking, and the ever-popular CBT (not cognitive-behavioral therapy - look it up).

Particularly remarkable is that, unlike U.S. obscenity laws, but like child pornography laws, the law criminalizes not only production and distribution but possession. Having forbidden images on your hard drive could land you in jail.

This raises in my mind the applicability of the UK Human Rights Act and through it the European Convention on Human Rights. These documents have not been consistently and broadly applied in the area of sexual privacy - witness the European Court's upholding of the Spanner convictions.

Interestingly and disturbingly, the UK Government cited the Spanner case in its justification of the law:

The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people. It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence, so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place. The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

Once one concludes - as the House of Lords did a decade ago, that BDSM is itself a crime, criminalizing its depiction, and even possession of such depictions, becomes easy. The justification, vis a vis the right to freedom of speech, is identical to that regarding child pornography: the forbidden material is the record of a violent crime, and its dissemination furthers the harm to the victim of that crime, and feeds a market for further crimes. This is the rationale on which the US Supreme Court has upheld the child pornography laws, and without knowing the corresponding case law in the UK or the European Court of Human Rights, I would expect a similar result here when the law is, inevitably, challenged in court.

Renegade Evolution: It’s late, I can’t sleep, and I am obsessing over this new UK porn law…

Linking to Ren, because she said it (a couple days ago; I've been busy grading papers) better than I could. I usually don't quote entire posts, but I'm gonna quote all of this one. (There are images to go with it, follow the link if you want to see. But if you're in the UK, you might not want to *gnashing of teeth*)

Renegade Evolution: It’s late, I can’t sleep, and I am obsessing over this new UK porn law…

Seriously, I am. Even though it’s all the way over there in the UK, it’s freakin’ me out. The precedent it sets scares the shit out of me. FFS, I don’t even do BDSM porn, except for on the most rare of occasions…but yeah, Mr.E and I sat around looking at my shit playing the very chilling “Would we get arrested in the UK for having this on the PC?” game. Even though it’s consentingly made by adults stuff with me in it??? I mean, okay, I’m not gonna put up actual full on out all the bits showin’ porn, but…

I mean…a photo with an “endangering” looking chokehold? A photo with a knife, positioned menacingly? Good thing I respect some of y’all’s feelings and standards of decency and left the ones with the (unloaded, of course) gun out… Er…I’d need a good lawyer. And I don’t even want to get into “things which look like they might cause damage to the breasts, anus or genitals”…I mean, whose? And who gets to decide what looks like it might? Cause see, to me, fisting and dp/vag dp/anal dp and stuff…doesn’t hurt, wouldn’t damage, no big deal…but to someone who has never had a dick up their ass, it could look most damaging! Is that sort of thing even going to be taken into consideration? Things like “humm, BDSM enthusiasts and rough sex lovers and, well, porn people are more prepared, knowledgeable and experienced with this sort of thing than, oh, say, Constable Smith who pinches up his ass cheeks tighter than Fort Knox even thinking about anal sex or Concerned Citizen Sally who has never, or never even had the desire to get…ahem…pounded by more than one dick (real or synthetic) at the same time? My God, what would they make of the infamous foot? Who is going to set the standards for this shit? And seriously, if I, oh, free of charge or something want to send person X in the UK a photo of me getting railed up the ass while being choked, even though person X is an adult, and I’m an adult, and all are consenting…person X could get jailed and or fined for it…even though s/he’s not involved in the act itself…at all????

Talk about getting thrown over a barrel and royally fucked!

I honestly can’t believe the country that gave us the Stones, the Sex Pistols, Ozzy, Siouxsie and the Clash has passed this law.

Disbelief. Utter disbelief.

BBC news article on proposed UK legislation to criminalize possession of "violent porn"

Just wanted to link to this article from the BBC. We've mentioned this in here before as I recall, but this article is particularly good. Especially the audio interview linked there with one of the women from Backlash.

Gender Roles and D/s

(xposted from my journal)

When Monkey and I go to restaurants, I usually order for us both. It generally gets stunned responses. This time, the waitress asked him, and blinked when I told her my order first and then his.

I find this a delightful game, but it's also a little disheartening in some ways, which Monkey himself commented on once she was out of earshot. I laughed and said "See how shocked?"

He looked at me seriously and said, with distaste, "Yeah. I never would have expected that. We're not in Saudi Arabia* or something." I think he was actually uncomfortable. I wasn't; I was amused.

But yeah, it is rather odd when you notice it. It's a pretty startling social reversal to a lot of people. Which I'm sure says something about gender and culture.

ETA: Which leads, in a roundabout way, to things like this:

Let’s not even get into S&M with her as my sub. Spanking her, I can live with, and I don’t know why it doesn’t ping my guilt. Tit-smacking is something we both enjoy, and again, I don’t know why a blow to her breasts is arousing and not guilt-worthy. But when the whole thing turns to punishment, all of a sudden all of the abuse cases from my days doing social work come flooding back. When I smacked her once, after both of us negotiated it, I felt horrible specifically because I live in a world where men can do that, where men do do that, and it’s not negotiated.

That moment when I smacked her — even though it was consensual, even though it happened after negotiation — I was never more acutely aware of her gender. I don’t think I was that aware of her gender when I watched her give birth, because giving birth is raw biology, and I’m conditioned to think it’s natural, and smacking her was…anathema to me. It violated everything I had been raised to believe in, and a lot of self-constructed images I had about myself.

I didn’t like it. Precisely because of who we are, male and female.

It works both ways, mind. I know there’s something my wife gets off on when it comes to penetrating me — when it comes to being inside of me, whether it be with her hands or a strap-on. That I’m a male submissive, that we’re throwing out Christian household values and the normal power structure and we’re embracing a system where — if most of the people we know in our daytime lives found out about it — we’d be viewed as aberrant. That we’re not aiming for equality at all, not even giving lip service to the idea of helpmeets or equal partners, but inequality, and inequality rooted in abuse and power and sexual subservience.

I don’t know if I’m explaining this properly, since my modus operandi with the blog is to rant and not really plan or redraft, but rereading Dev’s post and the other I linked to, what I thought about was that slap, and how I was acutely aware of my maleness and my wife’s femaleness. And how she slaps me all of the time and neither of us minds, but the one time I raised my hand to her, I fell apart. And more than a little. Because of our genders. Because she was a female submissive.

*NB: Yeah, I realize gender relations in the Middle East are more complicated than this and the remark was ignorant.

For those of you who are dominant and have livejournals...

...I just started a community for us there.

Confession

I'd really like to talk to an ex-sadomasochist for real.

I mean sit her down and talk to her. About everything. About her bad experiences. About what the community was like for her. About who her friends were, who she had as a support system. Who she looked up to. Who she got advice from. Where she or her top or her bottom or whatever got their safety info, physical and emotional.

I read things like this and I just wonder if we even mean the same thing when we say BDSM. In that comment, miss_andrist says ". I was a BDSM sub for 17 years, passed off from one "owner" to another."

I have never seen such "passing off" myself. I've heard of consensual "loaning," but the only times it's ever been mentioned to me it's been by submissive folks themselves: "Sir, I have this fantasy of you loaning me out/offering me to a room of your friends to use/etc." I've never seen the idea that people actually "transfer property" as she mentions.

So I'd actually really like to sit down with someone like this and talk about the community she was part of. I get the strong feeling that the communities I'm a part of have norms of behavior that the community she talks about actually lacked. I wonder whether any of her opinions might be different if I'm right on this. If those who dominated her saw themselves as involved not just in consensual objectification for fun but in doing what every good partner should: being a positive, loving force in her life.

I wonder what having that conversation would do. Part of me thinks of ex-SMers as I think of ex-gays: just sad and lonely and self-hating. But ex-gays, it strikes me, don't have histories of abuse and of gayness being used as an excuse to abuse, where several ex-BDSMers have those stories.

So my question is, really: How can we stand up for ourselves as worthy people making a worthy and personal choice to do SM, D/s, B&D, whatever -- while still honoring those abuse stories and the fear they speak to?

Category Airing (Reprise)

[ Reposted from here at Trin's request and in a fit of, 'Oh, right, that so goes at SM-F, doesn't it?' ]


I've got a fair amount of stuff rattling around in my head in response to Dev's post about female submission, and a lot of it is horrifyingly fraught and such, so I'm going to try to get what I said in the comments there coherent and see if I can deal with the rest of it later when I'm feeling less like bleeding on the carpet about it.

I am not a female submissive.

I am a woman. I am submissive.

Spotting the difference matters.

I'm on a couple of BDSM communities on livejournal, and every so often someone will pop up with "I read on male_dom" or "femdom" or "humbled_females" or something else linking sex or gender to power exchange. And while I'm pretty easy for communities, none of these have ever even remotely tempted me, not even as a place to lurk. They don't offer me anything I value, that I can value. I just ... not only is this not my kink, it's a kink that makes me uncomfortable.

And some of that discomfort is being genderqueer enough that any sort of sex-based essentialism tends to throw me out of the conversation entirely, because I'm either miscategorised or in that neither-fish-nor-fowl place where somehow, in the discussion being had, I don't exist. And not existing is a nasty, uncomfortable place to keep winding up being, so I prefer to stick to fields where my status as an extant being doesn't throw errors everywhere.

The thing is, these things aren't descriptive to me, stuff like "M/f" or "F/m"; they don't seem to describe systems where those just happen to be the relationships those people have, but rather something where it is important that The Person Of One Sex Is Dominant, and The Person Of The Other Sex Is Submissive. It's a particular gendering fetish, and it's not one that I share; it's not one I want to be involved with, either. ("Your kink may be okay, but I'll go over there now.")

If one isn't treating the sexes of the people involved as something that matters, then there isn't a need to specify. Those facts will come up as relevant, and if they're not relevant, they won't, and there's no sense bringing them up. There's no need to make a marked case of it. Someone reading for detail can probably pick out the facts of various interactions, to some level, and make guesses about others, especially as I do not go to any particular effort to conceal stray data (partially as a political act), but unless it matters, that's just data kicking around.

And every so often I get in my tracking someone doing a websearch for 'femsub' (and that's, I believe, the first time that appears in this blog; I just googled and got this for the search result, which doesn't contain it), and I sort of wince and want to shake the boxes a little, make space in which I can be a submissive without being a "femsub". Because I'm not one, and no amount of treating someone who fits two categories, who is 'female' and 'submissive', as thereby going into a category that links the two will make me stop existing for the convenience of the categorisers.

And all this leaves me awkwardly on the edge of discussions of differences in perspective on seeing a male submissive or a female submissive. For reasons that I think have a lot in common with people who have conceptual issues with the two -- that I'm deeply uncomfortable with stuff that looks like it's framing 'power' and 'sex|gender' as being intrinsically linked in a particular way -- but from my usual Klein perspective. Because I don't approach or perceive power as gendered, I can't meaningfully take part in a conversation in which the gendering of power is present as an axiom. It erases me from the discourse.

It most particularly erases my power. When my submission is gendered, it feels to me like it turns it into something that's about-womanness, rather than about-power. And I can't understand that as anything other than a caricature, because it's so alien to me, so it feels like treating me as a cardboard cutout, making my status as a woman the first and most important thing about me in a context where I feel the most important thing is my status as a submissive.

And yes, there's a fuckton of problematic stuff out there about power, especially in this context sexualised power, and sex|gender. I don't deny that, because I'm not a damned fool. But my submission is not about womanhood, it's not about femininity, it's not about genitalia; it's about loyalty, dedication, oathmaking and oathkeeping, being a pillar of support, service, strength, and trust.

These are not incompatible with being a woman, but they are not female. Focusing on my femaleness uncenters the perception from my power.

And it's all about the power.

Heh.

Women tops are really men.

Y'know, Captain? If your worldview presumes "anyone powerful is a man"... well, anyone who looks powerful is going to look like a man to you.

EDIT McEdit: Just to be absolutely clear, my vehement disagreement here is in no way intended to minimize this person's terrible experiences, or anyone else's.

Okay, I guess I really AM back...

How in the FUCK did I miss this nonsense?

A few days ago, a feminist blog I follow made a post regarding a male chastity device. It's pretty obvious that the thing's intended for BDSM fantasy play - or at least it is to me. The poster missed that the first time around, which is fine if she's not familiar with BDSM. Learn something new every day, right?

What really gets me, though, is that after making an edit saying she missed that it was intended for fantasy play the first time around, she ends it with "Men get to fantasize about having their sexuality controlled, while everyone tries to control a woman's. Funny, innit."

GAH. So if a guy's a Dom, he's exercising male privilege by subjugating poor sub women like me, but if a guy's a sub, he's exercising male privilege by indulging in fantasies of subjugation (that for some reason women like me are incapable of)?

I don't have much to add to what Zula says there.

But uh? Wow. Just *wow*.

It's a common theme in anti-BDSM radfemville that a dominant guy is subjugating women for shits and giggles, but a submissive one is slummin'. I can't say I'm not startled to see it on popular feminist blogs, though.

Or that I'm not seething.

I'm honestly not sure what exactly we're supposed to take as evidence that everyone's BDSM is always man-centered. I mean, I get that a lot of what's packaged for consumption, even if it is "femdom," is often directed towards male markets and so geared to male fantasy.

But I really resent feminists -- feminists! -- telling me the power I claim consensually in the bedroom is a lie and a farce, when those same people would tell me that if Monkey and I switched, his power would suddenly become terrifyingly real.

Which is it, dammit?

And when exactly did it become feminist to disempower me because I'm female? I really would love to know... *sigh*