Xref: utzoo soc.feminism:1804 soc.motss:51988
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: alansz@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Alan Schwartz)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism,soc.motss
Subject: Re: feminism; leather
Message-ID: <1991May21.170626.11845@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 17:06:26 GMT
References: <11332@xenna.Xylogics.COM> <1991May10.183832.20579@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <2550@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Followup-To: soc.feminism,soc.motss
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 41
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


In article <2550@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
>
>
>Anyway, Wendy was talking about leather/S&M, in case you'd forgotten
>(I almost had) - so where does this tie in.  I'm not really sure - but
>I think that it's because it reinforces the male-supremacist system by
>being supremacist/subordinate in it's nature.  The question would seem
>to be why *does* this turn people on?  I'm not saying that it's
>perverse, or anything like that (what's wrong with being perverse I
>hear half the motss crowd scream ;-)), but what I am saying is that
>maybe, just maybe, it is a product of our society which makes people
>think that they can only feel good if they are dominating someone, or
>being dominated by someone.  I guess I'm going to put a lot of
>peoples' backs up with this - but I really don't mean it to be as
>inflamatory as it sounds - I just can't really see how to explain what
>I'm thinking.  Infact, I'm not really sure *what* I'm thinking.  Can
>anyone out in soc.feminism land explain more fully to me what the
>anti-S&M movement's views really are?
>
  Well, I can explain some things on each side.  Anti-S&M feminists
generally object to S&M because they believe that it reifies the system
of domination that is rampant in our society's sexuality.  However,
many lesbian SM practitioners have provide a most direct counter to
this allegation, by noting that in their sexplay, the partners come
to bed (rack, etc.) equal, may exchange roles (or not), and leave
equal (i.e. w/o the inherent power differential between men and women.)
  Lisa Palac, managing editor of _On Our Backs_ (a lesbian "porn"
magazine), has told me that all sex involves power, and SM boils down
to communication (when it's played safely) about power.  In her words,
"To say it's like the patriarchy is an easy simplistic kind of reasoning"
(Palac, personal communication, April 1991) 
  I would direct you to Robin Linden Ruth et al., eds., Against
Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis (Palo Alto, Frog in the WEll:
1982) if you want to explore the Anti-SM viewpoint.


----
Alan Schwartz                    | Disclaimer: I represent no one
alansz@cogsci.berkeley.edu       |
UC Berkeley                      | "Life is what happens to you while
Cognitive Science/Women's Studies|  you're busy making other plans"
                                 |          - J. Lennon