Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: tittle@zola.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: comments on violent porn, and violence in general
Message-ID: <9104251548.aa18084@ics.uci.edu>
Date: 26 Apr 91 14:42:07 GMT
Lines: 86
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In <19488@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:

>What I see, though, is not just a matter of difference in
>personal tastes.  Many people make automatic *moral* judgments
>about those who enjoy S&M or violent porn, just as others
>automatically condemn gays and lesbians.  I have seen the former
>in this newsgroup, indeed, it comes through quite clearly in Ms
>Paditji's post.

I have found this topic to be one of the more difficult issues that I
as a feminist have had to consider.

First, a little background.  I am quite familiar with S&M, or
"dominance and submission" as it is often called by practitioners.  I
am also familiar with *real* violence in sex, having experienced date
rape while an undergraduate in college.

[I consider rape and date rape to be two very different things and
think that date rape is a giant misnomer.  Rape does not involve sex
except as a mechanical act used to further the rapist's objective.
Date rape, on the other hand, is a mix of violence and sex.
Occassionally, what *looks* like date rape is actually rape (because
the rapist and victim knew each other, were on a date, etc).  Date
rape is when the aggressor truely and honestly thinks that the victim
wants sex -- rape is when the aggressor doesn't care at all what the
victim wants.  This is all IMO, but it is necessary to know how I view
these things in my discussion.]

I understand S&M, and I also understand that very few people *do*
understand it.  The absolute core of S&M, any S&M, no matter how it
appears to the onlooker, is that S&M IS CONSENSUAL.  One of the major,
and I repeat, major components about the "turn on" S&M holds for its
practitioners is the feelings that a bottom experiences by turning
over all of his trust to the top, trusting that the top, with total
permission to do anything to the bottom, won't actually go past the
real line for the bottom.  And for the top, the feeling that he/she
gets by meriting such trust from another person.  It sounds
complicated, and it is, but the foundation is still TRUST and
CONSENSUALITY.  A poor top is one who doesn't really understand
his/her bottom's needs/wants (top=dominant partner, bottom=submissive
partner).

However, society at large does not understand this aspect of S&M.
They see the actions without understanding the context.  This is what
happened to me; my date got it into his head that I would enjoy S&M
and proceeded to force me.  I don't blame this on S&M's existence, I
blame it on prevalent misunderstanding of S&M.  I am not afraid of
anyone who actually practices S&M and understands what it means.  I am
very much afraid of those who think they know what it is all about
(and that people are *really* being forced) and proceed to act on it.
Even more so, because they are *turned on* by this.  This line of
thought is abhorrent to S&M practitioners.  I believe the majority of
what I consider to be date rapes [sic] spring from this misconception.

Here's another example of the consequences of this kind of thinking.
Back when a.s.b. first appeared on the net, there was this wonderful
poster named D! who detailed some of the sexual experiences she had
with her boyfriend.  She was the submissive, he was the dominant.  She
quit posting (may have actually changed her login) when some people
started writing letters to her along the lines of "hey baby we know
you like it, sit still and let me fuck you" and so on.  What these
people missed was that she had consented to her *boyfriend* as a
submissive, not to every randy fellow on the net.  I don't know if
she's returned to posting or not, I believe that there is anonymous
posting available now for the group.

How to resolve this issue?  It isn't easy and I don't have answers.
But the varied reactions, including both Paditji's and Turpin's, are
to me completely comprehensible.  In my opinion, Paditji is wrong, for
S&M involves consent plus violence, and Turpin is wrong, because we have
everything to fear from those who do not understand the consent part
of S&M.

>When a gay man recommends to homophobic writers
>that they read certain pieces of gay literature, it is not to
>make them gay, rather, it is in the hope that their stereotypes
>and misconceptions might be lessened, and their understanding
>increased.  The intent of my post was similar.

And one that I applaud.  I would only add a warning about the actions
of those who don't know that S&M=consent.  Ignorance is such a danger.

Of course, the topic of feminists dealing with submissive roles in S&M
is a whole 'nother can of worms...

--Cindy