BDSM & Feminism... Just curious

[ShamrockClover]

What is your view on women taking a submissive role in BDSM?
Can a woman be a feminist whilst enjoy this type of sexual dynamic or do you believe the two are mutually exclusive?
Is it hypocritical?

Personally, I feel a woman can be both. But I'm genuinely curious to see others opinions on this topic.

@Alexa97

Rape isn't about the act?

I would agree that rape isn't a crime of sex - rather its core is about power and control. It's a crime that involves the sexual act. It's a way of saying I can do to you what I want and you can't stop me. It's the difference between doing to, without their active consent and doing with their active consent. From everything I've read, it's the psychological damage of rape that makes it such a heinous crime.

You mentioned story writing, I hope that a strong part of those stories focuses on all characters taking responsibility for their actions. Whether that is a dominant man or woman. I hope that the Dominant focuses on the welfare of the submissive, and that the purpose of the story is to explore the dynamics of consensual power exchange, the difference between BDSM and abuse, and that it's not just about sexualising it and the characters. 50 Shades was not about BDSM, it was a story about abuse. We need much less of that.

Being submissive is supposed to be about finding joy and fulfilment in service - a laudable goal. It isn't intrinsically sexual. That joy could be just as easily found in volunteering at a soup kitchen as in a D/s relationship. Being Dominant is about leadership, taking responsibility for and learning to act in the best interest of. The adult industry has a lot to answer for.

That, for me, is why I feel discussions around the dynamics of BDSM have a much needed place in wider society, but not necessarily the acts.

@SensibleSigma
Earlier, I suggested acts - that's what I was hinting at. It isn't supposed to be about objectification. Rather, it's about the submissive being able to safely submit without being abused. The tasks are supposed to bring enjoyment to both parties.

In relation to the submissive aspect of BDSM, it can be feminist. The whole key is consent. In society woman don't get the choice in BDSM you do. Essentially the submissive is in control when it is done properly. They direct the scene, put in the pre agreed boundaries and the dominant abides by the scene the submissive has chosen. It's a play on the power dynamic. It's not always woman that are submissive either, there are a lot of men that are submissive.
If the submissive says stop, it all stops.

The issue though as BDSM has become popular, I find abusers are using it as a mask and way in.

I mean in role-playing, the doctor, patient act you see a lot, I don't think anyone actually want to be a patient in reality with an illness.

I agree with you both. In a 'true' d/s relationship the sub holds the power.

Yes this.

Consent is not enough as consent can be coerced. The language feels pedantic, but it needs to be an active choice made freely by both parties without any coercion.

The reason abusers are able to use it as a way in is because there is not enough good quality information available in the public domain to allow easy discernment between someone being dominant and someone being abusive. When the same act can be both abusive and part of legitimate play, understanding and documenting the difference is important.

As an example, someone forcing another to wear (or not wear) items of clothing is a red flag of abuse. In a total power exchange it is often part of the dynamic. The difference? The dominant suggests, but the choice to wear the dominant's choice of outfit rests with the submissive.

@Pinenuts91

The issue though as BDSM has become popular, I find abusers are using it as a mask and way in.

This is why it is counterproductive to feminist goals. It enables abusive men, dressing it up as "kink" even when it really is about misogyny, whether the submissive realizes it or not.
There is really no control when you put yourself in a position where you are particularly vulnerable to abuse. That's an illusion. If a partner chooses to abide by your boundaries and rules for consent, it means you got lucky, not that you have any control over what he does to you.
You could just as easily be unlucky, since you already know the man is domineering, and in many cases, sadistic. How can you possibly trust a sadist or a control freak to not abuse you? In all objectivity, you can't. At any time he may decide to override your consent, because he gets off on that.
Sadism is a paraphilia and paraphilias are compulsive. It's not comparable to a fantasy that does not involve harm.

@XChrome

In this instance, please de-sex the use of language. Abusers can be male or female, masculine or feminine. When you sex the language around abuse, you potentially hide the hurt and harm to specific parts of the community that we already know are vulnerable - that of lesbians and bi-sexual women.

In part, I understand your suggestion that BDSM may be antiethical to the goals of feminism. However, a hidden detail - saying that someone can or cannot engage in BDSM practices is the definition of controlling behaviour you warn of. It has to be the persons free choice.

BDSM is most definitely not for everyone. I feel like a broken record, but at the core for those who actively choose to engage needs to be responsibility - to educate oneself, to raise awareness of abuse and to not engage in abuse.

So to, however, is there a responsibility on the larger community to discuss and understand the difference between Dominance and abuse. The goal needs to be eliminating all abuse, no matter its form. One of the things that troubles me with this conversation, we know all sexes and sexualities can be abusive. The ways men and women abuse are different.

If you observe a typical high school, there is an observable difference between the form violence takes. Boys will, generally speaking, be more physically violent. Girls, on the other hand will be more likely to engage in emotional violence. They will use status and privilege to shun and cast out of the group. They will use gossip and lies to elevate and demote within the group.

It's all abuse, and needs to be labelled as such.

I know abusers can be either gender.
However, I was specifically talking about a BDSM scenario where it is a man and a woman with the man as the dominant, so of course the language was gendered. If it's two women, there aren't really the same anti-feminist implications of BDSM IMO.
I did not say people can't do BDSM either. They are free to do so, free to say so, and I am equally free to state my opinions on it. I think that's fair and it's certainly not controlling.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that emotional should be more recognized. Mind you, males engage in it as well. Verbal abuse is a form of emotional abuse which boys and men often use. Men in relationships engage in manipulative emotional abuse as well. So it's not confined to females. Where there is physical abuse there is always emotional abuse as well.

I've had a fair few arguments with some of my rad fem friends around this.

I'm not into BDSM myself, but some of my good friends are / were when they were younger.

I feel what my rad fem friends - and some on this thread - are missing, is that BDSM doesn't always involve a man who gets off on making a woman submit.

Sometimes (and always for my female friends who are into it, no idea how typical it is), it's the woman driving the dynamic. The man isn't necessarily being dominant because he gets off in it, but because she does and has requested it.

I have absolutely no doubt there are a zillion arsehole men who are using the BDSM world to get their kicks abusing women. But to think this is always the dynamic is short sighted IMO.

One of my exes, for example, had a previous ex who was into BDSM, and I know he did all kinds of stuff I wasn't into with her previously. My overall experience of him, though, was he was eager to please, not that he was into BDSM, nor that he wanted a dominant role. We were together for ages and very open with each other, it wasn't something he was missing in a relationship, it was something he did to please her, when asked. His turn on was making his partner turned on, not dominance.

I tried to explain this to a couple of my rad fem friends who have strong opinions on BDSM but they refused to understand there could be a dynamic where the woman was in control, or where the man wasn't getting off on abusing the woman. It seemed that was central to their understanding of BDSM and they couldn't see anything outside of it.

BDSM and feminism can be pretty interesting together. Some folks see BDSM as empowering, where people get to express their desires and boundaries freely. It’s all about consent, which aligns with feminist ideals of autonomy. I’ve explored this in my own experiences.

Once, I tried restraints kits that really added a new layer to things. It was playful and brought in a lot of trust and communication with my partner. We talked openly about what we liked and didn’t, which made it even more fun. For me, it felt liberating to explore different dynamics, knowing we were both on the same page.