‘More acceptance’ of S&M needed

[Imnobody4]

talkradio.co.uk/news/more-acceptance-needed-sm-activities-19032230392
My morning isn't starting well. Haven't heard the programme - not sure I could stand it.

Well that's the beauty of feminism isn't it? It isnt a hive mind. SOME feminists may think that some arguments miss the point. But as noone has the definitive feminist standpoint, it is just one interpretation.

Yes the choicy choice thing always confuses two issues.

That women should have open to them the same range of choices (within the constraints placed on them by the real world) as men is one of the things feminism, if successful, should achieve. This includes good things (like winning the Fields medal for maths) and arguably bad things (like becoming a Tory prime minister).

This is not the same as saying any choice made by a woman is therefore a feminist choice. That's clearly false. Campaigning to restrict other women's reproductive freedom is not a feminist choice. Performing FGM on your daughter is not a feminist choice. Campaigning for men to earn more than women on the basis that women ought to be encouraged to stay home and have babies is not a feminist choice.

Not everything is based in childhood. We know that now, and lots of Freud has been debunked.

It doesn't have to be Freudian to be based in childhood. Childhood exposure to sexualised BDSM tropes like the feminine stereotype Penelope Pitstop always being bound up on a railway track by Dick Dastardly. These tropes are actually pretty perverted and innappropriate for kids and can unconsciously influences the phenomenonalogical content of sexual fantasies years later.

*Phenomenological

No, the beauty of feminism is not about affirming absolutely everything that women say or do, even if we restrict that to just women who say they are feminists.

The beauty of feminism is in working towards the liberation of women as a class. If you are not considering how your choice affects women as a class, don't even try to pretend it is a feminist choice. We absolutely do not need to be fighting for the right to participate in our own oppression. Men will always freely give us that right and indeed encourage it.

But just to be absolutely clear, I'd like to state once more that fundamentally it is the choices of sadists that I consider to be immoral.

And also to be absolutely clear, I do not believe any woman alive is a perfectly 'pure' feminist who makes only feminist choices. That is not what I am saying at all. We all compromise and capitulate in some ways, whether out of our own self interest or as a survival strategy. I just think that feminists should be honest about these things and not be afraid to look our choices head on.

I agree Magic

The thing is, I don't see anyone on this thread saying that BDSM IS a feminist choice. Just that choosing to partake in it is not necessarily unfeminist.

The bottom line as I see it is that violence against women is appalling. Some men are hiding behind BDSM as a way to abuse women. Sometimes, these men injure and kill women and, due to police misconceptions about BDSM/consent to assault, the full weight of the law is not being brought to bear upon these men.

That situation is completely crap. Women would benefit as a whole from people in the BDSM community saying "not in my name" and increasing awareness of consent within BDSM relationships so that these women DO get justice.

So when those of us who DO partake in BDSM come out and say "no, these men are abusive bastards, that isn't what BDSM is", how much does it help to raise awareness if people NOT into BDSM say "no, but BDSM is just about violence".

It actually reinforces the ability of men to use BDSM as a defence.

Plus, it is only a short hop from "BDSM is violent" to "well you knew what you were getting into".....which is a bit too close to victim blaming for my liking.

People into BDSM who do say "not in my name" won't speak out if they are told they are non feminist, reinforcing the patriarchy, and that their descriptions are "boring". Descriptions given as a means of demonstrating that these murdered women could have wholeheartedly entered into BDSM with their murderers, and it STILL wouldn't explain the violence towards them. And therefore police and judiciary should understand this and stop letting these monsters claim BDSM as some kind of defence.

So I am forced to conclude that actually, some people are more bothered about condemning BDSM, than practically helping these women to obtain justice.

The bottom line as I see it is that violence against women is appalling.

Yes and some people think this is true even if she consented to it. The same way I think buying a woman's sexual consent is appalling even if she consented to it. Or how I think that buying a woman's baby is appalling even if she consented to it.

Some of us do not believe that consent negates immoral behaviour. Which would be exactly the principle upheld in the Spanner case and the principle that we are arguing must on no account be lost.

how much does it help to raise awareness if people NOT into BDSM say "no, but BDSM is just about violence". - can you point to where someone has said that on this thread? I've seen plenty of discussion around the power dynamics of BDSM and how patriarchal conditioning has influenced this, but not anyone saying "BDSM is just about violence".

People into BDSM who do say "not in my name" won't speak out if they are told they are non feminist, reinforcing the patriarchy, and that their descriptions are "boring". - this sounds like emotional blackmail. Why wouldn't they speak out? As we've seen with the trans discussions, people of varying different positions have come together to defend women's rights.

"well you knew what you were getting into"

No, this is what I would say to the sadist if he should find himself being prosecuted due to the important principle that it should be legally impossible to consent to being harmed.

And loads of us would totally agree that the Spanner principle should be upheld.

Sadly, whilst the narrative amongst those NOT in the BDSM world is that BDSM = violence = she wanted it, and attempts to explain otherwise are dismissed as boring and exhibitionist and, these abusers will remain able to use BDSM as an excuse, and the police and judiciary will buy into it.

and attempts to explain otherwise are dismissed as boring and exhibitionist and, these abusers will remain able to use BDSM as an excuse, and the police and judiciary will buy into it. - so if we all say how very fascinating you are for sharing your lengthy non-exhibitionist posts about the kind of sex you enjoy then the problem will be all solved, have I got that right?

Lucy (and others), isn't it somewhat naive to accept the narrative that a man's pleasure in BDSM is wholly due to the response of his partner to his actions, and nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of those actions themselves? It would be remarkably unselfish as the basis for a relationship, and you would think that for someone who didn't get off on the simulated violence itself, having to perform it anyway to satisfy his partner would be pretty repellent.

YY, exactly. This gives the lie to that often repeated statement.

Hitting someone is violence. Hitting is a common practice in sado-masochism. You have rationalised hitting as non-violent in your case, which is absolutely your right in your personal life, but it is very important that we maintain the true definition of violence when discussing things on a wider level.

If we define violence as acts that the person subjected to them believes to be violence, well bam there goes the Spanner principle. (And hello 'misgendering is violence'.) There is an objective definition of the word and hitting is very much included.

Women might benefit from men in the BDMS community explaining that their only objective is the pleasure of their partner and that under no circumstances would they injure or harm her even if she begged them to.
I won't hold my breath.

The same goes for the other poster who was saying something about 'looks like violence but doesn't feel like violence'. Nup, violence is not a feeling, it's an action.

@abuseofpowercomesasnosurprise read back through the thread. Loads of examples of people saying BDSM is about violence. I cannot be arsed to go back, but they are there.

It isnt emotional blackmail to point out that people will be reluctant to discuss things if they are spoken to with disparaging language.

But when violence is involved, it's about violence.

So lucy if BDSM isn't about violence, do you condemn violence being eroticised and think things like choking and beating shouldn't have a part in BDSM?

looks like violence but doesn't feel like violence'. Nup, violence is not a feeling, it's an action.
So willingly getting a tattoo is a violent act? Tattoo artists are violent?

so if we all say how very fascinating you are for sharing your lengthy non-exhibitionist posts about the kind of sex you enjoy then the problem will be all solved, have I got that right?

Keep up with missing the point that I and others into BDSM are making.

Whilst people, continue to equate BDSM with violence automatically, rather than understanding the nuance (which was the point of my long, non-exhibitionist posts, to show the nuance) harmful narratives are perpetuated. Abusive men then have a defence and the idea that woman should have "known what she was getting into" is alive and well.

If people cannot get that point, it is sad. Because you won't stop people engaging in BDSM, nor will you stem the tide of pseudo-BDSM into the mainstream if that is what is happening. But education into nuances may help the police to not give abusers an out, and the public to support the women and police.

With that, I am out.

So willingly getting a tattoo is a violent act? Tattoo artists are violent?

The point of the tattoo is that you get a piece of body art, not the act itself. If you found it arousing to be in pain, it would be a masochistic fetish.

The point of the tattoo is that you get a piece of body art, not the act itself. If you found it arousing to be in pain, it would be a masochistic fetish.
And it's not the act itself in a situation where pain may be involved, but the mental stimulation and adrenaline produced that stays with you for a while after. It is not to do with arousal in most cases and it is not to do with sex in many. Violent sex is violent sex, not BDSM. And there is a difference between a sexual sadist/masochist and BDSM. What's more it does not scar you for life.
I have to agree with lucy though, that if BDSM=violence then violence towards women will continue to be excused by BDSM. If they are not separated, the law will be able to take this into account. BDSM should not result in serious injury, rape or death. If it does the perpetrator is not a Dominant with a fetish. He is a criminal.