Are BDSM and Anarchy Incongruous?
I posed the following
inquiry on a number of fora:
If we reject political, economic
and cultural bondage, domination, sadism and the willingness to be enslaved, then how can we
justify them in
intimate relationships?
If I've understood
correctly, it is the Catecholamine rush that is experienced in
BDSM, as well as the extreme dynamics of the relationships, that make BDSM so intensely
and uniquely pleasurable
to those who partake in them.
It seems that what is sought after are the hormone rush and the extremity of interaction, not
necessarily the particular behaviors that induce them.
I can imagine the possibility of
a sexuality based on gentleness and intimacy that is now inconceivable, society being such as it is,
that would bring about the same intensity of pleasure and extremity of intimacy that BDSM does
without humiliation, helplessness, beatings, bindings, fettering and the like.
In an anarchic society BDSM would
not be taboo. Neither would they be
illegal. I suspect, however, that they would become forms of behavior that are voluntarily not engaged
in as other, gentler, sexual
behaviors that bring about the same intense level of pleasure and intimacy would be discovered in a
culture that was involved in the study of advancing the more sublime aspects of
Humanness on all levels.
Tentative Conclusion: There would
be no need for legislating against BDSM, demonizing it, considering it pathological
or employing any other social pressure
to curb it in an anarchic society. It would simply be supplanted by sexuality
that is no less pleasurable, but in no wise painful or degrading.
An Interlocutor Who Engages in BDSM Wrote:
The
issue around BDSM for anarchists mostly comes in with D/s
(dominance/submission) and erotic role-playing that involves power disparities,
sometimes using historical or stereotypical models of
power-over
relationships. Again, this sexual/sensual/psychological activity is consensual
(unlike the actual, historical instances of slavery, torture, humiliation,
imprisonment, etc.) and the people
involved
do genuinely get off on it. It fulfills deep sexual and psychological needs for
the people in those roles that can't be adequately met in other ways. You may
be surprised to learn that it
is the
"bottom" or "submissive" partner who primarily holds the
power in these situations--without their ongoing consent and willing, full
participation in the scene, things fall apart quickly. so,
while the
appearance
of a BDSM scene or relationship may be one of power-over and oppression or
exploitation, the reality for the people directly involved in BDSM
relationships and community is one of mutuality,
consent,
and power-with.
The
above response is fairly typical of the kinds of responses to my position that
I have been receiving from people who claim to engage in BDSM.
I responded:
I
recognize full well that it is the sub, not the Dom, who, in the main, creates
the situation - both in BDSM and in a state, as I will explain.
Herein
lies the problem precisely and the contradiction between BDSM and true anarchy.
I
have written extensively how those who accept, invite,
even beg for political domination are far more reprehensible than those who
accept the invitation, accommodate and dominate.
Genuine
anarchy recognizes the fact that there is no state that stands above and in
opposition to the governed unless the populace agrees to be governed and
oppressed and suppressed.
Gustav
Landauer also wrote: "One can throw away a chair
and destroy a pane of glass; but those are idle talkers and credulous idolaters
of words who regard the state as such a thing or as a fetish that one can smash
in order to destroy it. The State is a
condition, a certain relationship between human beings, a mode of behavior; we
destroy it by contracting other relationships, by behaving differently toward
one another...We are the state, and we shall continue to be the state until we
have created the institutions that form a real community and society of
men."
"Schwache Stattsmanner, Schwacheres Wolk!"
Der Sozialist, June 1910
WE
are the state". Let those words sink in.
There can be no attaining anarchy until that reality is fully
internalized.
Note
Landauer's use of the term 'fetish'. Landauer used language very deliberately, exquisitely accurately. He meant exactly what he said: Most people, even
those who define themselves as anarchists, regard the state as a fetish. There
is an equation of regarding the state as an entity and other fetishes employed
in other sub/Dom relationships as well as in superstitious religious practices.
That Dom/sub relationships are a species of perverted relationships of man to
God should be evident.
Anyone
can call himself or herself an anarchist, in the sense of "I don't want
any state to tell me what to do". But
authentic anarchy is far more than that.
It is at odds with any type of Dom/sub relationship, recognizing full
well that it is the sub who eggs the Dom on.
In
direct proportion to the masses gradually refusing to be oppressed and
suppressed, government dissolves.
Just
as it is not the Dom, but the sub, who is enabling the
"scene" to occur, so it is the masses who will not be free that
enable to state to exist.
Evidently,
there are enough people who wish to be subs in their private and/or public life
that they are creating a state of oppression for others.
So,
it turns out that the will to be subjugated that exists in the heart and mind
of so many people and is expressed, inter alia,
sexually is not a personal matter after all. The desire to be subjugated on the
part of the many is affecting others who wish to be free adversely.
I have formulated an (always tentative) opinion on this matter,
having considered a good deal of input that I received in response to this
query. It is this:
Let's
not subsume BDSM under "kinky". Let's consider it alone.
I contend that the need to even
"play" that one is dominating and/or being subjugated is caused by those modes
of interaction in society.
Having engaged in them in the
bedroom, those modes are reinforced in the personality and are perpetuated in other places of
interaction.
Therefore, BDSM and anarchy are
incongruous.
We read one another subliminally
and are affected by others' behavior by the "vibrations" that they cause.
The people who
partake in BDSM do not, cannot, keep their actions behind a closed door. Waves travel over, under, around and
through doors. They
make doors vibrate and produce sound. Your doors tell what has been going on behind them and what they
tell can be heard – by everything
in creation whether consciously or not.
Their brain waves, sound waves,
the disturbances they cause in matter,
the air and the ethers (call it dark matter if you prefer), etc., affect us all.
As we descend on the
spiritual/moral scale one of the effects of the descent is that we perceive beings as being
atomized. We see ourselves and
others as discrete. This leads us to the conclusion that it is
possible to perform actions that
do not affect others.
The result of that is those on the lower ends of the spiritual/moral
scale do that which they like
irresponsibly and regardless, nay oblivious, to how it affects the other sentient beings who
share
existence with them.
So, who suffers from the
"bad vibes" of BDSM (and all other behaviors that send violent vibrations out) most? Not
those who are so spiritually/morally
dense that they do not feel subtle vibrations
(after all they are so coarse as
to need extreme sensations), but rather
the gentle, evolved folk who perceive the slightest tremors.
Those who partake in BDSM are
making all creation coarser and are
not allowing those who would
otherwise find ecstasy in the most
sublime sexual interactions to be
able to feel that. They are "hogging
the spiritual/moral air
waves" with their "vibes", even as one could
not enjoy chamber music in the
presence of a heavy metal band.
Illegal? No,
passé.
A
number of people who responded to my query misunderstood me entirely and
thought that I was implying that in an anarchic society BDSM will be
illegal. They leapt upon what they
thought was a contradiction in my thesis that Anarchy and BDSM are incongruent.
Nowhere
did I write, imply and never did I intend that in an anarchic society BDSM will
be illegal.
It
will be passé.
It
will be understood for what it is – a horrendous form of slavery characterized
by the inability to experience profound physical and/or emotional pleasure
without experiencing pain (sometimes called "intense sensations" by
those who practice it).
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan,