genderberg.com

Lost Clown wrote:

delphyne wrote:Objecting to BDSM and wondering why someone would be singing its praises in a rad fem anti-porn space isn't being the rad fem police, Lost Clown. That's the kind of rhetoric that pro-pornies normally use. Is that really how you see rad fems who make arguments against BDSM? Laura didn't need to bring her personal experiences into this, we could have had a discussion about BDSMers attacking anti-porn feminists and promoting their so-called egalitarian porn (which is just a ruse so men can hang on to all their porn) without it ever having been brought up.

It didn't sound to me like she was singing its praises, just saying her own personal experience. But with some of the comments she's received it certainly does seem like you're saying she's not "a good enough feminist."

Like I said already, I'm not interested in the idea of "good" feminists or "bad" feminists. That's a categorisation created by people who get upset when something that they really like is argued to be harmful to women - the shout immediately goes up "you're calling me a bad feminist" when no such thing has either said or been thought.

I'm really interested to know though, what did you or Laura think would be the response to a defense of BDSM in a rad fem space? Or more to the point, what sort of response would you like to have seen? Maybe the answer to the latter will explain the division here.

Umm, did you even read the parts where she said sadism is abusive? That she wasn't endorsing BDSM as a whole? Or do you just skim to find something you can attack her on?

edited to add: As I said before I do not support BDSM, what I do support is Laura's ability to do a feminist analysis and apply that to her life. As long as she is not abusing others, and given that she's firmly against pornstitution I would say that she is not, she is free to carry out her life as she sees fit. As I said before, we ALL like things that are part of our patriarchal conditioning.

delphyne,

I have not 'sung the praises of BDSM'. Conveniently, anything I've said about parts of it being abusive has been ignored, and I am now 'pro-BDSM', according to xochitl. I know what the general radfem view of BDSM is, I was interested in critiquing this and looking at different approaches, but that clearly isn't welcome and I won't try any more.

But I do want to say:

Rich,

Go fuck yourself, quite frankly. I know because you're antiporn you are some how allowed to get away with belittling women, but if you were actually sympathetic to feminism you would listen to women's experiences (or, just, you know, read what we've written would be nice) before judging us, making assumptions and heaping on the sarcasm.

I'd be very grateful if one of you could answer the question please:

I'm really interested to know though, what did you or Laura think would be the response to a defense of BDSM in a rad fem space? Or more to the point, what sort of response would you like to have seen? Maybe the answer to the latter will explain the division here.

I'd be very grateful if you could answer the question please:

Lost Clown wrote:Umm, did you even read the parts where she said sadism is abusive? That she wasn't endorsing BDSM as a whole? Or do you just skim to find something you can attack her on?

I still want to know how you think we should have responded to what Laura said, however any of us characterise it, as you and she clearly aren't happy by the response she has received here.

What is the reasonable response to statements like these made in a rad fem space?:

Wrt BDSM - yes it can be abusive, especially when taken to the stage where people live as sub/dom - but I have never been comfortable with the out and out condemnation of any act that could fall under this acronym.

I don't think feminism is about saying what is valid and invalid when it comes to sex.

My boyfriend can tie me up and fuck me and I can do the same to him, in the spirit of respect and care and wanting to make the other person happy, within the confines of an equal relationship.

There are elements of BDSM that are abusive as I said - sadism certainly seems to me to be at odds with respect for others - but to write off anything could fall under BDSM as INHERENTLY HARMFUL just seems excessive, and thoughtless, to me.

BDSM isn't inherently male sexual violence against women, no matter how many times you say it is, nor is sexually explicit material. It can be different, and if people want to try and make it different I say go ahead.

But I also think that sexual taste is as wide ranging and varied as the human race and that, free of any kind of socialisation, it is likely that I would still like certain things which I have seen labelled 'inherently harmful'. Yeah, I can't know for sure, but having engaged in things in the past that I now know were due to issues I had, linked to growing up in patriarchy, I think I can tell the difference between what I enjoy and what I was warped into engaging in.

I would sleep with a man who would cause me pain IN ORDER TO GIVE ME PLEASURE in the knowledge that I enjoyed it, NOT because he enjoyed the harm he WANTED to cause me

Dominance : I get the arguments against power play, and I think they are very valid. It can be entered into due to people being stuck in patriarchal gender roles, and it can be used to reinforce them. It doesn't have to be. Giving over control of your body to someone else for sexual pleasure and stimulation can be very exciting, and vice versa. It can be an expression of complete trust. As long as there is a safe word and this is undertaken between individuals who fully trust and respect each other, I think it is OK.

And you know the "BDSM is not a monolith" is an argument that comes straight from the pro-pornies and its a disingenuous one at that. One minute Laura is saying that feminists shouldn't criticise sexual practices, the next she's saying that we can as long as it's the ones she disapproves of as well. I guess BDSM isn't a monolith in the sense that Laura is fine with some parts of it and not with others, but that isn't in fact an argument. It is actually OK for rad fems not to be fine with any of it given that BDSM arises straight out of our male-created sado-society - it's not thoughtless or excessive, and that seems to be what you and Laura have a problem with, Lost Clown.

I've already said what I thought about all of this. I think I've made myself clear.

Lost Clown and Laura, I know you don't entirely agree with me, but my analyses of the whole discussion in this thread are Radical Feminist ones. Please, be strong, sisters (!), even though you believe that patriarchal socialization/training is extremely difficult to resist, coz you'd have everything to win in being strong = it is my message (and if you go back to one of my latest posts in this thread -- where I was talking to Laura -- and read it, not just skim it, you will see that it is).

I'm totally with Delphyne in the firm radical feminist political oppositions to pornography, prostitution, and BDSM. It doesn't mean I blame any particular woman for her particular sexual choices -- stubborn or not, though. This is not "thought police" -- this is a call for our genuine liberation (as Delphyne put it), women's liberation, by utterly and conscientiously refusing to capitulate to patriarchy and all its masochistic trainings (unlearning them one by one, for the sake of our own humanity, authenticity, and freedom as women), so that, someday (when there will be enough resistant and strong women on this earth), masculine domination can find no victim (consenting or not) to prey upon, and thus assert its so-called "superiority" over us, take it or leave it... The kind of healthier sexuality which I advocate (and which I refered to in earlier posts) is better than any other kind of sexuality, 'cause it would allow us fulfillment, joy, genuine bodily integrity, real sexual freedom and humanity (we'd just have to give it a serious try, trust me), take it or leave it...

delphyne wrote:It is actually OK for rad fems not to be fine with any of it given that BDSM arises straight out of our male-created sado-society - it's not thoughtless or excessive, and that seems to be what you and Laura have a problem with, Lost Clown.

I agree...

Laura wrote:delphyne,

I have not 'sung the praises of BDSM'. Conveniently, anything I've said about parts of it being abusive has been ignored, and I am now 'pro-BDSM', according to xochitl.

Laura,

I guess I should say I agree with many of the statements you made, in your most recent post, about BDSM. If you are not "pro BDSM," I apologize, but I did get that impression from your post about "knife play" and so forth. If you go back and read some of your earlier posts to Maggie, I think you will see how someone may get the impression that you are "pro-BDSM. I'm thinking specifically about the post where you talk about how "egalitarian porn" can include stuff like women being whipped, as long as the women really enjoy and want to be whipped, and as long as the guy whips her in a respectful manner, and as long as the men watching it are getting of to the fact that the woman really enjoys being whipped. (Correct me if I am not interpreting what you meant correctly--I think this is what you were trying to say, but I think this logic is so bizzare that perhaps this is not really what you meant to say.)

Also, when you say things like "I love it when my boyfriend ties me up and fucks me," you must know that that sounds like you are "singing the praises of BDSM" to some people. I wasn't aware of these fine distinctions between different forms of BDSM--frankly, I am more interested in issues related to women in the global south, women of color, and poor women, so I don't spend much time reading stuff by Western feminist writers on BDSM.

I am not trying to put words in your mouth, which is why I repeatedly provided quotes from you, where you indicate that preference for sexual pain is not due to patriarchal conditioning, but to an innate desire to experience pain in sex. Like others here (including LC, I think) I disagree with you about this. I disagree with you that people's intentions are more important to the goal of women's liberation than specific sexual practicies. I also think that this kind of reasoning (regarding intentions vs. sexual practices) is the same reasoning used to to defend porn and prostitution, by women who claim that they really do love being prostitutes or porn stars.

Lost Clown wrote:I'd be very grateful if you could answer the question please:

Lost Clown wrote:Umm, did you even read the parts where she said sadism is abusive? That she wasn't endorsing BDSM as a whole? Or do you just skim to find something you can attack her on?

I agree with Laura that sadism is abusive, obviously. I think it's great that she has clarified that she is not "pro-BDSM."

I still disagree with her about the innate-ness of BDSM proclivities and about the political usefulness of placing an emphasis on people's intentions regarding sexual practices.

delphyne wrote:I'd be very grateful if one of you could answer the question please:

I'm really interested to know though, what did you or Laura think would be the response to a defense of BDSM in a rad fem space? Or more to the point, what sort of response would you like to have seen? Maybe the answer to the latter will explain the division here.

I'd like to hear the answer to this question too.

xochitl wrote:

delphyne wrote:I'd be very grateful if one of you could answer the question please:

I'm really interested to know though, what did you or Laura think would be the response to a defense of BDSM in a rad fem space? Or more to the point, what sort of response would you like to have seen? Maybe the answer to the latter will explain the division here.

I'd like to hear the answer to this question too.

Same here. I'd like to hear that too.

And BTW, Lost Clown, I did notice when Laura mentioned that sadism was abusive (to answer the other question you asked). But that doesn't change my sexual political opposition to BDSM as a whole...

xochitl wrote:

Lost Clown wrote:I'd be very grateful if you could answer the question please:

Lost Clown wrote:Umm, did you even read the parts where she said sadism is abusive? That she wasn't endorsing BDSM as a whole? Or do you just skim to find something you can attack her on?

I agree with Laura that sadism is abusive, obviously. I think it's great that she has clarified that she is not "pro-BDSM."

I still disagree with her about the innate-ness of BDSM proclivities and about the political usefulness of placing an emphasis on people's intentions regarding sexual practices.

That's not what she was saying, but I can understand how it comes across that way.

I am not addressing other posts because I don't feel that you've actually *read* or processed anything I've written (maybe misunderstood, but I am more then happy to clarify. If you actually would listen to it and don't want more fodder to crucify me with.)

MaggieH wrote:And BTW, Lost Clown, I did notice when Laura mentioned that sadism was abusive (to answer the other question you asked). But that doesn't change my sexual political opposition to BDSM as a whole...

Nor mine. To quote a post I made earlier in this thread:

As I said before I do not support BDSM, what I do support is Laura's ability to do a feminist analysis and apply that to her life. As long as she is not abusing others, and given that she's firmly against pornstitution I would say that she is not, she is free to carry out her life as she sees fit. As I said before, we ALL like things that are part of our patriarchal conditioning.

Go fuck yourself, quite frankly. I know because you're antiporn you are some how allowed to get away with belittling women, but if you were actually sympathetic to feminism you would listen to women's experiences (or, just, you know, read what we've written would be nice) before judging us, making assumptions and heaping on the sarcasm.

OK, check: Being mean on the internet is evidently now WORSE than exploiting various facets of patriarchy to engage in sex acts with women that involve the infliction of pain, effectively making yourself a rapist of the "willing." Because those dudes can be good pro-feminists if they're good listeners. Unlike those sarcastic types on the internet.

I'm glad that's clear now. I'll just go to a corner and "fuck myself." Because doing that also, evidently, makes me a piece of shit compared to men who are more than happy to fuck someone else who is tied up.

I wasn't talking about you. I was trying to change the subject to the male partners of feminists who enable BDSM fantasies. Last I heard, I DO get to judge men for their actions.

So yeah, lets talk about them. What's up with what they're doing?

Lost Clown wrote:

xochitl wrote:
I agree with Laura that sadism is abusive, obviously. I think it's great that she has clarified that she is not "pro-BDSM."

I still disagree with her about the innate-ness of BDSM proclivities and about the political usefulness of placing an emphasis on people's intentions regarding sexual practices.

That's not what she was saying, but I can understand how it comes across that way.

I am not addressing other posts because I don't feel that you've actually *read* or processed anything I've written (maybe misunderstood, but I am more then happy to clarify. If you actually would listen to it and don't want more fodder to crucify me with.)

OK LC, now I feel like you are being dishonest. I provided you with quotes where clearly says there is something innate about the desire for sexual pain. She clearly says that people's intentions are more important than sexual practices (which is why she speculates that "egalitarian porn" can include stuff like a guy whipping a woman, as long as all the parties involved really respect the woman and are getting of to the fact that she likes the pain.) So it seems disingenuous for you to continue to claim that no one is reading or processing what you've been saying. I've read it, agreed with much of it (ie, the fact that we aren't perfect, we shouldn't beat ourselves up for not being perfect), and disagreed with other things you have said (mostly your interpretation of what Laura said and your judgment that I have no right to comment on political statements she made publicly, on a forum where people are supposed to respond to other people's comments).

rich wrote:

I wasn't talking about you. I was trying to change the subject to the male partners of feminists who enable BDSM fantasies. Last I heard, I DO get to judge men for their actions.

So yeah, lets talk about them. What's up with what they're doing?

Well, one position that has been offered is that there is nothing inherently oppressive and patriarchal about a man who ties a woman up, cuts her,whips her, and fucks her. What matters most is what is in his head, and whether or not he intends to give her pleasure. Tie her up, cut her, whip her, just respect her while you do it, that's the road to women's liberation.

Lost Clown wrote:I If you actually would listen to it and don't want more fodder to crucify me with.)

You know I am finding it difficult not to get irritated with statements like this, you've already said Laura has been attacked, now you're claiming to have been "crucified". You've been disagreed with, sometimes robustly, but you haven't been attacked.

I'm going to answer my own question as it appears that neither you nor Laura want to show us the right way to approach disagreement with you. It is unreasonable to come into a rad fem space and make pro-BDSM statements and expect to receive no negative response. It is unreasonable to accuse people who strongly object to hearing statements like that in a space like this of attacking you. It is unreasonable to expect rad fems not to have any negative feelings about being told the joys of a man tying up a woman and fucking her, or hearing how whipping a woman and filming it for other's consumption is fine as long as the woman is "respected" and it is unreasonable to expect that those feelings should not be expressed. Being against male sadism and male domination is fundamental to radical feminism, yet apparently you and Laura expect people here to drop our political convictions and, well I'm not sure what, because you won't actually say what sort of a response would satisfy you.

I brought up BDSM here because it was quite clear that that was the agenda the writer of the article was pushing with her references to "valid kinks". It is noticeable that being pro-porn and pro-BDSM are almost always hand in hand in feminism and it is worth pointing out every time the subject comes up because there is obviously another agenda at work here. I'm not just talking about the people we've all come across - I've spent time in two very different forums (one a twenty-something third wave site and the other a mainly middle-aged women's forum) at different times and in both of those during discussions about porn it turned out that its strongest female supporters were into BDSM and they were also the people who launched the harshest attacks on radical feminists. There's a connection, I'm not sure why there would be, but I'm pretty sure it's a question worth raising.

It is unreasonable to expect rad fems not to have any negative feelings about being told the joys of a man tying up a woman and fucking her, or hearing how whipping a woman and filming it for other's consumption is fine as long as the woman is "respected" and it is unreasonable to expect that those feelings should not be expressed.

I wasn't going to say anything about this, as I was worried that I would be seen to be a) over-personalising this, and b) jumping on people.

I personally find it very triggering to hear descriptions of BDSM and anal sex, as it raises very unpleasant feelings and memories in me that I will not go into here. I cannot adaquately express the emotions that it calls up because I don't have the words. I'm the reason there is a trigger warning on this thread. Now, I'm not saying that I should be protected from everything that might upset me, nor that anyone did this deliberately to upset me, nor that these things shouldn't be discussed- but there is a time and place, and I don't believe that is here. This space should be safe, and I thought it was clear that such questions and discussions were inappropriate here. I doubt I'm the only one here who finds discussion of the pleasures of BDSM triggering- in fact, I believe this thread shows explicitly that I am not!

Yes, I probably should have said something publicly earlier. I felt rather silenced, and was incredibly nervous when responding on this thread, lest I should sound unkind and censor-y. I'm sorry.

Re what Sam said below, just to clarify:
I meant rather that I think statements about one's enjoyment of BDSM practice is inappropriate here, not the discussion itself of BDSM and hierarchical sex. Sorry for my lack of clarity!

On that note, and thank you for it laurelin, let's wrap this up. I do believe GB is an appropriate place for possibly triggering discussions on pornography and sadistic, masochistic, and hierarchical sex but feel this thread's usefulness may be running its course.