December 11, 2001

Floggers, and Chains, and Ropes, Oh, My!

The debate between lesbian s/m (sadism/masochism) practitioners and anti-s/m theorists has raged for a long time. One side is arguing that s/m sexuality is genderless and the other side, that the sadists are trying to be men. Are lesbian tops really just trying to be men or are they not even in the equation? I argue that the anti side is rather limiting in their definitions.

Before I begin with the various arguments, I will give you the definitions of the terms used in this paper. "Sadism" is an allusion to the work of the Marquis de Sade, an 18^th century French nobleman who received pleasure from the pain of women. "Masochism" is an allusion to the works of Leopold Sacher-Masoch, whose fantasies revolved around being whipped by a beautiful woman in furs. (Hauser) The term "sadomasochism" was coined by Sigmund Freud who believed we have both sadist and masochist tendencies in us, but usually lie more on one side than the other. (Freud 570) A "top" is someone who is in charge of the scene. The term references the person’s usual position, on top of the other. A "bottom" is the opposite. A "switch" is a person who can be either a top or a bottom. The term is also used for a person who can be sadistic or masochistic, depending on the scene’s circumstances. A "scene" is the duration of the action that occurs between the top and bottom. A scene can have one person tied up until released or another person whipped until the timer runs out. It is decided by both partners beforehand and exists only during the time they decide. If someone stops the action, then the scene is over. "Play" is the term for the action itself. A "safe word" is the word used by one partner to tell the other something is wrong and play should stop. It is recommended that a person use an uncommon word or a word formally agreed on by the partners so that no confusion results. If you are playing a scene in which dominance is a theme (which is doesn’t have to be) and the dialogue between them uses "stop," and "no," to mean "I want more," it would be wrong to have the safe word be "stop." The one hearing this word would think play is continuing and the one saying it will be unsafe (hence the name). If someone says, however, "tree," then the one hearing that word will know that something’s wrong because "tree" was not being used in the scene.

There are several problems with terms when it comes to this argument of roles. One major problem with the terms of "sadism" and "masochism" is that they both are in reference to men and their desires. In fact, Krafft-Ebing, who made the term masochism known, "considered masochism in males, in females it was just submission." (Hauser 212) It is probably because of this definition by the father of sexology that people see s/m practitioners as following gender roles: those on the bottom are being "women" and those on the top are being "men."

This is the major argument between the two schools of thought: whoever is wielding the whip is being like a punishing "husband," not someone who is trying to use a different kind of toy for mutual pleasure or to make fun of the set roles. "Despite their claims to the contrary, sadomasochists are not playing with power and control in the abstract. For the purpose of fun the drama in their scenes uses (publicly, thus endorsing) the real-life horrors of oppression that real women and lesbians have endured." (Saxe 67)

What Ms. Saxe and others of this opinion does not realize is that perhaps the person wielding the whip is not the one making the decisions. A top is not necessarily a sadist, though that is the most common way for a top to be. There is an expression in the s/m community called, "topping from the bottom." That is the kind of person some of us are. We like to give direction to a person who wants to be told how to please us. We like the sensation whips and other toys give us and are very particular about how we get these sensations. With this quote in mind, which one in the scene is the "man?" I think the answer would be neither. Or perhaps we are being hermaphrodites and are truly unnatural.

Though people who like to top from the bottom do exist, there is a lot of discomfort with us around. We pose a threat to those who do want control of the scenes. But just because they want control, does not mean they are trying to be men. People who argue this essentialist notion are buying into what they have been spoon-fed, that men are more violent than women are and women are more submissive. These are instead learned behaviors, which is illustrated by someone successfully subverting their role. It is also illustrated, sadly, in the stories of women who beat their partners in real life.

This leads to the argument that this play is in fact completely real. "Sadomasochism is part of, and also creates, a world view in which the world is imbued with dominance and violence." (Saxe 67) In other words, this is not two (or even more) people enjoying themselves sexually; it is a group of people who want to beat up one another, or are psychotic. What several don’t understand is why the use of a dildo or even something like a feather is ok, but the use of a nipple clamp isn’t. They are all for feeling sensation. As the expression goes, "some like it hot." If two consenting adults enjoy the same thing, whose business is it of anyone else? People come into a scene, play it out and get what they want, and then they go home.

Ms. Saxe says that once a person comes into the world of s/m they can never get out. It is an addiction. Play and real life can no longer be distinguishable. There are people out there who get enjoyment from torture of another person, like de Sade. But those people are not practicing s/m consensually. Each person has their say when they negotiate (talk out) the scene. This means that the action occurs exactly as both would want it to. There are others who have played together for so long that each knows what the other likes and little negotiation is used. Safe words still are, though, in case someone is feeling uncomfortable. If there is a person who does not adhere to the rule of "safe, sane, and consensual," which most dungeons (play areas) have, they are not allowed to play with anyone who is a member of the group in that space or become a member of that group. In fact, they are not considered a member of the community at large. There is a reason it is all called play. Judith Butler in her paper, "Imitation and Gender Insubordination," speaks of drag and how it is playing with roles, a performative critique of the gender system. S/M can also be seen as a play-on-the-system. The practitioners know that violence is wrong, but their actions are simulations of the real. The dominant participant may decide to play a man, but that is their decision at play. They are not trying to be anyone but perhaps an actor. Also, as Atara Stein says, "Flirting with physical danger is part of the thrill, just as it is for extreme athletes." (Steing 53)

S/M is seen as an addiction because of endorphins. There is no true addiction without the use of brain chemicals, after all. Vern L. Bullough, Dwight and Joan Dixon describe the process of the "addiction":

Endorphins allow you to go into a "high," yet another drug allusion. You no longer feel the pain at its intensity. Many sadists know this. They start with very soft tickle-like sensations and gradually move up. Something that they would rate as a "10," the hardest they could possibly do, may feel like a "6" to their bottom if their endorphins work that well. A person’s tolerance for pain and pleasure changes with each new experience, however. Someone can enjoy food that was once far too hot for him or her. If a person craves more sensation due to the highs they get and the number of similar experiences, they can build up their tolerance and so crave more. This may seem like an addiction on the outside. But a person with a true addiction could not go on happily for months without it, as I and others I know have done.

Another argument is that our desires are formed by society. Perhaps they are. Who knows the human mind well enough to prove that? As Margaret Leroy states, "In fairy stories and feature films, in romances and hard pornography, we see that domination by men is sexy, and submission by women is sexy, and the logical extension of male domination of women – male violence to women – is sexy, too." (Leroy 239) I would argue that perhaps the person who sees these whips may want to feel one and doesn’t care about being dominated. Or perhaps someone just wants to decorate a willing canvas with temporary marks. People want to kiss others, why not have the whip do the kissing?

All these actions do not have to be as severe as depicted. People like to shock and so the media will do all they can to give that. A person may only want one five-minute scene once a month and be happy to live their otherwise "normal" existence. Some only like to be bound and left there for a while with no sadomasochistic intentions. They will get what they want, done by someone who wants to give that to him or her. As Atara Stein states:

What people like Saxe don’t seem to realize is that any person can abuse. Any person can also enjoy the company of another in a safe and consensual manner. Many are often under the wrong impression that women can not beat other women, nor can gay men beat other men. Both are feminized and, of course, "feminine" people are incapable of violence. But participating in s/m, women are deviating from their nature.

Another misconception is that practitioners of s/m are not "normal" people. This behavior may not be embraced by the "norm," but that does not mean s/m’ers don’t lead normal lives. They are adults of all ages and backgrounds. They are students and teachers, politicians and civilians, men and women, black and white. They are connected only thinly by the term s/m. This term is used as an all-encompassing word, but many people in this community are not into pain. They could be into bondage (which does not always involve pain) and that’s all. They are still part of this group. The fact that many buy into these media images of leather daddies always equipped with whips shows how limited the argument is. Ms. Saxe does not appreciate that Pat Califia says s/m’ers should unite under the umbrella term of s/m. "Community is sought not with lesbians who are battling our common problems imposed on us by a misogynist culture, but rather with men who go to prostitutes and thereby participate in the subordination of women." (Saxe 67) She does not realize that a person can be one of several groups. A person can be a lesbian AND an s/m participant.

Ms. Saxe and others believe that women who participate in this are not feminist. Charlotte Croson states that lesbian s/m practitioners, "guarantee that somebody will always be on the bottom, and that somebody will be a woman." Saxe quotes the riddles at the beginning of this paper for one of her arguments. She does not see that there is a qualifier of "anti-s/m" before the word "feminists." She thinks that these riddles are against feminism, when in fact they are against people who are anti-s/m AND claim to be feminist. Many feminists, whether anti-s/m or not, have critiqued commonly used words. Many also try to prove their equality with men by using a man-given title. And many also have always tried to find a "common ground" with other groups. She doesn’t realize that these riddles are playing with the various forms of feminism and how it would apply to s/m. The critiquer is most likely a radical feminist, one who is trying to go beyond the system and find new words. The one with credentials is a liberal feminist who is trying to work with the system by having society-important credentials. The one looking for "common ground" is most likely a third world feminist, one who sees oppression between and with groups. The only link between these is that they are anti-s/m. The riddles are poking fun at the "norm" for each subgroup of feminism. But, just as each practitioner of s/m is a different person, each anti-s/m woman is also a different woman. This joke is not making fun of feminism itself but the anti’s within feminism and their particular subgroup of feminism. It also states, as Lynda Hart does, "Women didn’t join the feminist movement in order to have their sexual practices policed by feminists themselves." (Hart 47) Sara Sutler-Cohen asks as well, "Doesn’t feminism, by nature, suggest that women have equal access to what men have?" It makes little sense to have one oppressed group tell its members how to be.

The lesbians who participate in this are said to not be truly lesbians. But, then again, what is a "true lesbian?" Just like Monique Wittig states in her "The Straight Mind," "Lesbians are not women." (32) Wittig is going by the definition of a "woman" being a human being with female genitalia who fits into the subservient wifely role to a biological male. She, too, Butler is "an imitation for which there is no original," (Butler 306) an unattainable ideal.

If we were to go by the definition that "normal" people are not only straight but only have sex for reproductive reasons and only in the missionary position, then I suppose s/m’ers are not normal. But, what is a "real" lesbian? Is she a woman-born-woman who has not had and will not have any kind of intimate relationship with a man in her life? Is she separatist? Is she defined by others only? If these are true, then I don’t believe I know any "real" lesbians. If there are therefore no "real" lesbians, then, why make such an argument in the first place? It seems to be that the limiters limit themselves as well.

In a world where people must follow specific instructions on how to be who they are, not only are the oppressive groups doing this, but also oppressed groups are following suit. Until people can decide to live and let live and take their concerns out of someone else’s bedroom and look into their own circumstances, this war will not end. But, hopefully, people will have looked at more alternatives and exceptions to the rule before coming up with definitions of what a "real" person is.

Works Cited