Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism; leather (S&M)
Summary: Response the first: about S&M.
Message-ID: <20101@cs.utexas.edu>
Date: 21 May 91 23:30:15 GMT
References: <11332@xenna.Xylogics.COM>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
Lines: 149
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


-----
Forward:  (Not to be taken too seriously.)  The moderators were
probably quite relieved that my last post or two concerned
children, family, and work, rather than S&M and violent
pornography.  "At last," I imagined Ms Nadel exclaiming in
relief, "Russell has stopped sending his alt.sex.bondage articles 
to me!"  Now, along comes Mr Dente with all his questions, and 
the moderators even ask for responses here.  Perhaps they are
masochists. 

-----
In article <2550@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> dente@ecad-lead-site.electrical-engineering.manchester.ac.uk (Colin Dente) writes:
> ... Can anyone out in soc.feminism land explain more fully to me 
> what the anti-S&M movement's views really are?

The book "Against Sadomasochism" is a collection of essays and
other writings by feminists who oppose S&M.  I posted a short
review here about a month ago.  It is a good source for just the
question Mr Dente asks.  (He might also look in an archive of
this newsgroup to see the recent posts on this issue.)

> ... 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 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 ...

Mr Dente shouldn't worry -- honest questions upset only those who
are afraid of the answers. 

The first thing to note about the question is that it is most
unlikely to have one answer.  Neither the practices labeled S&M
nor its participants are uniform in character. 

It may be that there are some whose proclivities in this regard
stem from some internalization of social hierarchy.  Certainly
this would *seem* to be one part of the mixture for those who
decorate their scenes with police uniforms, etc.  But the mapping
between real and fantasy iconography is far from straightforward,
and even in this case, it is only speculation that the
participants' interpretation of these fantasy icons has anything
to do with social structures other than in appearance.  

This kind of decoration has always left me cold, precisely
because of its social meaning.  Do those who enjoy it find
excitement in that social meaning, or do they assign a fantasy
role to that iconography that is simply absent in my psychology?
Probably, there are instances of both.

A young Jewish woman who enjoys Nazi paraphernalia in her scenes
might associate it, from childhood observations of shielded adult
reactions, with that something (she knows not what) which is most
forbidden.  For her, it may trigger only that sense of perversion
(she is too distant from the social and political realities of
Naziism to react to these), and it is that sense of perversion
that excites her (perhaps because the adults that signaled to her
that Naziism is perverse are also associated, in her mind, with
repression of her early sexual impulses).  Thus, for her, there
is the following map:

    Real Meaning:     Naziism  -->  nothing important in her life
    Fantasy Meaning:  Nazi paraphernalia  -->  forbidden perversity
                                          -->  sexual excitement

For the adults who raised her, to whom the social and political
implications of Naziism are all too real, the maps are:

    Real Meaning:     Naziism  -->  oppression and torture
    Fantasy Meaning:  Nazi paraphernalia  -->  symbols of above
                                          -->  horror & repulsion

In the young woman's psychological maps, the Nazi paraphernalia
has little to do with social structures.  She has *not*
internalized anything to do with politics, nor power structures,
nor sexual roles.  Rather, she has internalized and transformed
the reaction of adults who raised her to a certain iconography
that does not mean to her what it means to them.  In this
example, the young woman might not enjoy S&M at all, but only the
use of Nazi paraphernalia.  The important point is that the
relation between the fantasy meaning and more mundane meaning of
any iconography can be quite complex and convoluted, thus
frustrating simplistic political interpretation. 

Those who are quick to tie S&M to political power tend to forget
that there are other kinds of power that are naturally and
intimately related to sexual maps.  I will mention a few.  

First, there is the internal power of sexual feeling.  Literary
descriptions of sexual pleasure often refer to the subject being
"overwhelmed" by, "lost" in, or "transported" by their feelings.
Psychologically, the person is moved from an ordinary emotional
state to a rarer one, one that is not always there for the
asking, and the reaching of which involves some loss of
volitional control.  The flip side of this experience of
powerlessness comes when one is part of the cause of this
"transport" in someone else.  These are two sides of a very real
power exchange that is a natural part of sex.  Second, a similar
kind of power exchange occurs in any friendship or intimate
relationship.  A friend or lover has the power to emotionally
hurt or nurture, to thrill or disappoint, to receive or offer.
Third, physiological power is a very real part of sex and many
other physical activities.  At sexual climax, one's muscles
contract and relax often with little control.  In many physical
activities, part of the reward comes from challenging physical
limits and experiencing physical extremes.  Whether or not sex is
involved, extreme physical actions, sensations, or exertions can
have psychological effects -- endorphins are released, one's mind
becomes more conscious of certain aspects of one's body, etc.
(On several occasions I have seen a post in a.s.b where someone
asserts that they like to be bound purely because of the physical
sensations involved.)

These are three kinds of power (and power exchange) that have
little to do with politics and social power structures.  Much of
S&M involves making explicit and playing with these various
aspects of power in personal relationships and the sexual arena.

A fourth kind of power is related to social power structures, and
plays a very important role in forming our sexual maps, but again
defies easy political classification of S&M.  In any society, a
child growing up experiences a variety of power imbalances with
respect to the adults in the child's life.  (The relationship of
carefiver to infant is perhaps the ultimate power imbalance!) 
But the effect of this power imbalance on sexual maps is rarely a
straightforward internalization of the larger political or social
structures.  In the example I drew above, the girl's parents
shielded her from both sexual expression (for one set of reasons)
and their experiences with Naziism (for another set of reasons).
Despite the great differences between these two, it was this
commonality (trivial in the minds of the adults, but important to
her at the time) that created a link.  

I do not pretend that these kinds of power are *all* there is to
S&M.  Some of it blatantly reflects society's current power
structures, indeed, some role playing *purposely* mirrors this,
often changing, reversing, or highlighting key aspects.  (Is this
necessarily wrong?  Is a play about slavery or the oppression of
women wrong?  Is it wrong if one enjoys watching it or acting in
it?)

What I will assert is this: any attempt to paint S&M as merely (or
even mostly) a straight internalization of political power
structures is both remarkably naive about human psychology and
profoundly ignorant about the range of activity encompassed.
In my opinion, this objection applies to much of the feminist
critique of S&M, including most of the essays in the above
referenced book.

Russell