Using this picture because I dig it.
The best part about being a voracious reader is the juxtapositions. Yesterday, while taking a blow-off day to be very sick, I laid on the couch and read through the most recent edition of Bitch, and I was impressed by an article by Jessica Wakeman called “Slap Happy” describing the practice of domestic discipline, which is something that really seems to have started with Christians who wish to return to an era where women were “managed” by their husbands through regular spankings. (The social acceptance of spanking women is something that seems to have disappeared so rapidly during the feminist era that it’s nearly forgotten that it was socially acceptable to the degree that images of men taking their wives or fiances over their knees and spanking them were on TV and in movies on occasion without too much fanfare up through the 50s.) But Wakeman isn’t interested in the fundamentalist Christians who want to return everyone to a Victorian era of gender roles that are mandated by law. She’s interested in the practice’s spread to couple that aren’t religious really and may even call themselves feminist.*
The article, and the whole issue really, are great and I’m not just saying that because they have the first review out of my book.** Wakeman lets the DD participants speak for themselves, but doesn’t fall into the “I’m okay, you’re okay” trap and lets that speaking-for-themselves make it very clear that these people are fucked the fuck up. DD is not BDSM, which is a sexual game, though some DD couples do also enjoy incorporating BDSM elements into their relationships. No, it seems that domestic discipline is a way of thwarting conflict in your relationship by assuming that every conflict or problem in the heterosexual relationship is the woman’s fault (because she’s childish, scattered, rebellious, whatever) and that it’s up to her man to discipline her. As Wakeman points out, it’s like The Surrendered Wife, except with spankings and time outs in the corner and women having to crawl over to their husbands or boyfriends on their hands and knees to beg forgiveness. There is no equality here; conflict appears to mainly and possibly always be solved by blaming the woman and wielding punishment. I failed to see how it’s much different from domestic violence, except that the women in this situation tend to minimize the conflict through stylizing the violence and submitting to it in a tacit exchange for their partners’ agreeing to have a limit on how much beating and abuse is handed out.
I feared for these women, though. The narrative in many abusive relationships, assuming all relationships have some sort of narrative, is that the woman in question is just broken and while the man hates to beat her,*** he ends up doing it because her fucked-up-ness would try anyone’s temper. Part of the process of breaking a victim down is slowly introducing her to this narrative in bits and pieces while depriving her of her independence, because most human beings naturally resist the idea that they are such pieces of shit that they probably have regular beatings and takedowns coming. What seems to be happening is DD is that women have decided to accept whole-heartedly this narrative about being pieces of shit that need regular punishment to keep it together, which again, may work to help restrain the violence. I don’t know. But I fear that even if it does, the fact that both the man and woman in this relationship accept the man’s superiority and moral authority over her so much that if these women do in fact start to stand up for themselves, that could mean that the beatings don’t stay contained. As it is, the people who do this are already tolerating bruising.
Which isn’t to say that I doubt any of these women when they say they’re feminists. All feminists end up making personal compromises with the patriarchy in some areas. You can’t fight every battle all the time non-stop. No one is superhuman. And from the interviews in this article, you definitely got the sense that it’s just this enormous compromise in a situation where the options are probably: keep insisting on equality with your man and have a home that’s non-stop fighting, leave him, or just submit. While I would recommend option #2 as something that women need to be less scared about as a general rule, I understand that often it’s just scary as hell, especially if you’ve become dependent on him in certain ways. Leaving is easy to say, all too often hard to do.
Which brings me to this insightful article by Donna Freitas about women who “reclaim” their virginity, i.e. go through this miserable process of self-renunciation in order to be acceptable members of their various fundamentalist Christian social circles. It’s easy from the outside to laugh at this idea and/or be appalled at the brutal misogyny that feeds the virginity reclamation project, but it’s hard not to feel some empathy with the relief women feel at clearing a hurdle and getting some acceptance, despite being members of the unacceptable sex.
Granted—this particular benefit of born again virginity highlights a religious system obviously oppressive and, for many, broken when it comes to the reality of young adult members successfully navigating expectations of extreme religious restraint prior to marriage. But to simply say (what I’ve heard some people remark), “Well these women should simply get out of this oppressive situation”—by leaving their faith tradition—is no answer either. That requires young people to give up their religious selves in favor of their sexual selves and presumes there is no possibility of reconciliation on the horizon. And reclaiming virginity, by the way, was also a rather difficult process and not simply something decided on a whim one day. One woman I interviewed explained how it took her a full two years to “repackage” her virginity and described all the many and diverse steps she took before she began to call herself a virgin again. To call herself proud of this effort and its result is an understatement. She fairly glowed.
These articles largely avoid the “empowerful” trap, which is the trap so well-skewered by Twisty, wherein the relief that comes when you quit fighting for yourself and just give up is mixed in with the joy of actual victory. Pulling down a real paycheck, leaving the asshole and living by yourself, obtaining a powerful job—these are real forms of power. Stripper aerobics, where the fun mainly comes from being able to combine the pressure to exercise a lot with the pressure to practice being a sex object, is empowerful. Not real power at all, just feels like it in the hands of those who aren’t used to what real power might actually feel like. Thankfully, both these articles avoid trying to dress a turd up in people clothes and admit outright that there’s nothing truly feminist about just letting your man treat you like a spoiled child who needs punishment or letting your community act like they’re doing you a huge favor by letting you back in if you punish yourself for having a normal sexuality long and hard enough. There’s no hiding behind the idea that feminism is about “choices” and therefore nothing a woman does can be analyzed critically.
But it does leave open the question of how to deal. On one hand, women have to do what they have to in order to get by, but on the other hand, we’re never going to get equality unless we fight for it. My thought is that feminists need to work harder on highlighting the benefits of standing and fighting instead of giving in. After the initial shock of how stressful it can be to start swinging back at the world that wants to beat you down, you can have a lot of fun. Certainly, having higher self esteem by choosing to start disbelieving the swamp of misogyny in our culture starts to improve your blood pressure. In the end, though, it’s something of an existentialist argument. You go into the breech because you’re just more alive when you fight. That sense of dignity that comes from fighting for yourself (or for art or for good or whatever) can really stave off the existential dread. Which is something I really got out of reading This Common Secret—though Dr. Wicklund has suffered a lot of strife throughout her career, she comes across as a centered, happy person, and I can’t help but think that a lifetime of good, meaningful work, of fighting the good fight, is what really gets her there.
*The old cliche was, “I’m not a feminist, but (fill in something that indicates the speaker is probably a feminist),” but now it’s “I’m a feminist, but (fill in sexist practice that speaker adheres to and feels guilty about, but unable to figure out how to get past the practice).”
**But it’s 5% of my consideration. The high praise for Wendy O. Williams is an equal factor here.
***It’s all bullshit, but what I’ve come to understand reading about DV is that this might be the biggest lie of all in many cases.
81 Responses to “Eating the lotus of male dominance”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
yes, that DD stuff is fucked up, but it doesnt seem any different than the same creeps who do this kind of thing calling it 24/7 D/s.
theyre using two different justifications for the same thing & the both sides D & s will blather on & on about how they ‘need’ to be in a relationship like theirs, due to whichever lie they choose to believe.
However, it’s only intolerant to point this out to the DD people.
Riiiight.
correction: it’s intolerant to point it out to the D/s people.
I’m not sure. On page 8 of the CDCs Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Scale we find that:
“Item 21 [has your parter ever spanked you] was deleted from the scale by scale developers due to low response rate and negative correlation with total scale.”
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Compendium/Section%20A.pdf
Something strange is obviously going on.
I’m going to have to get this issue of the magazine at my newsstand. This and other articles I’ve heard mentioned sound interesting.
BTW, just how DO these “non-religious” couples who “call themselves feminist” justify spanking of wives? Evo-psych? (AFAIK there are no cave paintings of men spanking or otherwise hitting women…) Her “pathology?” I wonder how many women who are “discliplined” like this come from abusive backgrounds (many, perhaps most, I would think).
Good doG, have I used enough quotation marks here?
So much good in this post. Really, the more I read it, the more I think this is one of the best Pandagon posts I’ve read in a long time.
The Donna Freitas article, to me, skirts too close to the “modesty movement” argument, though — the argument that the misogynistic slut-shaming should be upheld because it can give young women an excuse to not have sex if they don’t want it.
And I actually say this as a woman who did get that benefit from misogynistic virginity fetishism in high school: I wasn’t ready and didn’t want to have sex, and I had the socially acceptable excuse that I was “saving my virginity.” But it was a double-edged sword, because when I did feel ready, then I panicked about becoming a slut. It was just two sides of the same coin.
I’m embarrassed to admit that I’m completely shocked by this. How prevalent is this practice?
APS
As Wakeman points out, it’s like The Surrendered Wife, except with spankings and time outs in the corner and women having to crawl over to their husbands or boyfriends on their hands and knees to beg forgiveness.
AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I’m sorry. It’s just… people live like this. Jeebus.
Amanda, this cluster of articles seems to intersect fortuitously with everything that’s happening in my life right now. How do you do that?
I know this is a little beside the point, but was there ever an era when it was socially acceptable for men to “manage” their wives with regular spankings? I have seen men spank women in movies dating from the 30s, 40s, and 50s, but I always interpreted those scenes as meant to be sort of playful / funny / tongue-in-cheek. While I found the sexism and misogyny inherent in those scenes appalling (and the tongue-in-cheek aspect made it all the creepier), I never believed that it reflected reality.
Does anyone know if there has been any research on whether wife-spanking was ever an accepted practice at any time or place? Or any research/thinking on the meaning of “spanking scenes” in mid-century Hollywood movies?
I read about this thing a while back on the Savage Love Blog.
While I agree that this is about 300 years of gender role regression and a weird form of ritual abuse part of me refuses to believe it can be well separated from the practitioners sex lives. It just sounds like the equivalent of male adult babies to me. Maybe I think it must have to do with getting off because the physical discipline behaviour is defining DDers entire concepts of masculinity/femininity which are also fundementaly linked to their sexual personnae as well. Or maybe I just see sex everywhere I look.
i haven’t read the article in question (re: domestic discipline) but i’m curious about amanda’s pretty uniform ‘condemnation of // pity for’ those who choose to live in such a relationship. i understand that to those of us who identify as feminist and progressive it seems utterly fucked up, but it’s also (at least in theory) consensual. there are a number of odd relationship choices that i just don’t “get” (zoophilia comes to mind), but i don’t think i’m in much of a place to tell people how to live their private lives.
so: if the parties involved in d/s or DD relationships are able to make decisions about leaving their partners, is the relationship still “fucked up”? or is it just the fact that many women are made to feel as though they can’t leave?
bluebonnet, there’s at least one important difference between “domestic discipline” and BDSM, even 24/7 BDSM.
BDSM is NOT only male dominant/female submissive. The kink community comes out of a gay male leather tradition, and in the real-life pansexual communities, you’ll see relationships that are any combination of gender identities in all possible power orientations. Taking apart the link between “female/feminine” and “submissive/passive/subordinate” and the link between “male/masculine” and “dominant/active/authoritative” undoes some of the damage of the domestic discipline crowd. In BDSM, there’s no big lie that all women secretly want to be treated this way.
Also, it gives exit options within the community (which Amanda points out are so important). If a woman in the BDSM community doesn’t want to be spanked if the dishes aren’t done, she can get herself a sissymaid and spank him for not doing the dishes. She might have to leave her relationship, but she wouldn’t have to leave all her friends and support system.
I will say right now that there are online perverts who use the term BDSM but edge closer to the domestic discipline concepts. However, in the real life community of practice, there are actual norms in place that are socially enforced that make a difference between BDSM and domestic discipline.
Margaret:
I always interpreted those scenes as meant to be sort of playful / funny / tongue-in-cheek
I think that they were meant to stand in for forthright beatings, in the way that a kiss with a fade-to-black stands in for sex. That is, they’re supposed to be playful & funny, because they’re a cutesy, trivialized act; but they’re also supposed to be understood as implying normal marital violence.
The DD article was amazing. Something that really struck me about it, which Wakeman touched on briefly, was the number of women who talked about self-control; basically, they didn’t feel that they had enough control over themselves to achieve what they wanted (a happy marriage, perfect motherhood, losing 10 pounds–yes, at least one woman had her husband spank her is she went off her diet), so they needed that control imposed by someone else. It was very similar to the obsession with self-control you often see in women with eating disorders or other body issues.
I think this reflects a very real problem, something Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters apparently also talks about:
1. Women are told that they have total control over their lives, that all that sexism stuff is long over and they can do whatever they put their minds to. The corollary, of course, is that if they don’t succeed, it’s entirely their fault, and shame on them for letting womanhood down.
2. At the same time, there’s a lot of anxiety in our society surrounding women who are too powerful, too successful, too much in control. Self-sufficient women are bitches. They’re selfish. They’re unfeminine. No one will ever love them, because only helpless, out-of-control women are loveable. Several of the women in the article worried about “being a bitch” and wanted their husbands to keep them in line so they didn’t get too demanding or controlling.
3. Unsurprisingly, a lot of women develop deeply conflicting feelings about self-control and claiming power for themselves. If they don’t succeed in whatever goals they’ve set for themselves, they’re miserable failures, and if they do succeed, they’re mean old selfish bitches.
When you get together with other women to discuss these issues, it’s easy to see that they’re widespread and not a reflection of personal failings or debilitating weakness. When you don’t, it’s easy to get the idea that you’re the only one who has these problems and you need to take special measures to keep yourself in line.
I can think of a few situations where I would need to beg my husband on my hands and knees for his forgiveness:
- Deliberately totaling his car after canceling his insurance without his knowledge
- Having an affair with his nephew, who is 13 years old
- Murdering a member of his family
In other words, not exactly everyday “you didn’t load the dishwasher!” occurrences. The kind of thing that, if you did it to anyone, you’d pretty much be morally required to apologize on your hands and knees.
Responding to #9:
“Was there ever an era where it was socially acceptable for men to mnage their wives with regular spankings?”
Yes - there were in fact plenty of such times and places, and they still exist around the world. In ancient Rome it was acceptable to beat one’s wife almost arbitrarily, and if given a cause as simple as insolence, a Roman senator could well kill his wife and be lauded by the Senate for taking appropriate action to show the women their place. I believe domestic violence in general remains acceptable even today in rural China, for instance, and it has been so since the inception of recorded history in China. J.S. Bach beat his wife and children regularly, not to manage them, but as an outlet to his own stress relief.
My intuition tells me that the incidence of domestic violence, whether master-servant, husband-wife, or parent-child, is closely correlatd with the strength of the cultural notion that the subservient class is the property of the dominant class. I have to wonder how many of today’s ungrateful anti-feminists were spared corporal discipline while they were still children as an indirect result of the feminist movement.
Responding to #9:
“Was there ever an era where it was socially acceptable for men to mnage their wives with regular spankings?”
Yes - there were in fact plenty of such times and places, and they still exist around the world. In ancient Rome it was acceptable to beat one’s wife almost arbitrarily, and if given a cause as simple as insolence, a Roman senator could well kill his wife and be lauded by the Senate for taking appropriate action to show the women their place. I believe domestic violence in general remains acceptable even today in rural China, for instance, and it has been so since the inception of recorded history in China. J.S. Bach beat his wife and children regularly, not to manage them, but as an outlet to his own stress relief.
My intuition tells me that the incidence of domestic violence, whether master-servant, husband-wife, or parent-child, is closely correlatd with the strength of the cultural notion that the subservient class is the property of the dominant class. I have to wonder how many of today’s ungrateful anti-feminists were spared corporal discipline while they were still children as an indirect result of the feminist movement.
I have to say, I really liked the passage about the difference between being powerful and empowerful. If nothing else, it made me think about all the ways in which I currently actually do have genuine power, which helped lower my blood pressure a bit. I owe you one for that.
BTW, just how DO these “non-religious” couples who “call themselves feminist” justify spanking of wives?
They individualize it, it seems. Like this “works for us”, and just say that the woman in these relationships is especially a pain in the ass and in the need of discipline. Interestingly, that isn’t remarkably different than what blatant abusers say—they deny being misogynists, say they like women in general, but just seem to have found themselves a woman who is broken and doesn’t work right. (It’s doubtful they’d ever find one that “works” well enough that she doesn’t inspire beatings, but it’s apparently what a lot of abusive men tell themselves, which is why it’s usually been hard to get through to them with therapy. They don’t accept that the one raising his fists is the one with the problem.)
This is incredibly disturbing. I have a hard time even accepting “DD” as distinct from domestic violence. Using the word “discipline” implies that the victim did something wrong.
I’ve read some of the DD websites - google them yourselves if you’re interested - and I agree with #10 - at least on the websites I’ve seen DD looks a hellla lot like sexual kink dressed up in Christian language. And, unlike hte RL BDSM or D/s communities, rigid gender roles are required as well.
The denials on the webistes come across as so much wink, wink, nudge nudge.
Which just makes it all the more disturbing, really, that those who promote it know it for kink, but don’t/won’t make the move to name and own it as such, and impose the kinds of safeguards and norms that the BDSM and other kink communities do.
How that reflects on those who practice it is, of course, hard to say. The scary part is wondering how many practicing DD couples don’t recognize what they’re doing as kink and how truly fucked up that will leave them.
speaking of “various fundamentalist Christian social circles” ..
anybody else notice anecdotally massive swing back in a lot of country to fundamentalism? (Turkey being one. Growth of evangelical here. Palestine.. ) The type of conversation mostly is the same everywhere, using religion/citing tradition to bring back laws that screws women. Or at least reign in women participation in politics.
The effect on women political participation mostly is negative.
(too lazy to carefully scan various news site. it just pops in my mind.)
“and just say that the woman in these relationships is especially a pain in the ass and in the need of discipline.”
no; non-religious women in these relationships have said that they *like* the pain, & give other justifications like , it ‘focuses’ them, or they ‘feel loved’for being abused by their partner.. ive actually read those things as all being part of some Dominant/submissive relationships And there are always people willing to point out that those are ‘controlled’ beatings, etc…
So these sorryass christain DDers will cite some ‘higher law’ for their whacked out behavior, & the non-religious D/s people (with women in the s) will state theirs…but theyre both lying to themselves, arent they?
I can think of a few situations where I would need to beg my husband on my hands and knees for his forgiveness:
How did the joke go again…?
“Last night, my husband and I got into an argument. Before it ended, I was on my hands and knees in front of him.”
“Wow - what were you saying?”
“Come out from under that bed and fight like a man, you coward.”
lol
Well, about DD, it’s a complicated issue.
See, there’s at least two kinds of folks into spanking. (And there are other categories, and there is overlap) Some folks like a lovely, warm, percussive butt massage, or even enjoy a long, hard beating, if done with care and warmup. They enjoy the actual spanking, while it’s happening.
And some folk find a thrill in the threat, or the memory. The actual spanking is something disliked, but getting one puts the zing back in the threats and memories.
So some of the folks you hear talking about DD are really spanking folks who are into the second kind of spanking.
And it’s a mess… I think a lot of them are into spanking, or a bit of D/S, but either can’t or won’t self-identify in that way, so they plaster something else on top of it. And some folks will egg them on, posting fantasy as reality.
Herm. I don’t really have a point here… just some background information about the situation.
In one sense, it’s good news, not all of them are the kinds of folks who feel they deserve to be beaten because they’re awful people. In another, because they can’t accept their desires, and negotiate for it in a forthright manner, they end up creating a framework that justifies abusive relationships.
James, some couples indulge in “erotic spanking”.
I don’t get it, but I can believe that it could be consensual and mutual. YMMV. I suspect that the scale was being put off by this when it can occur without any other indicators of abuse because it isn’t abusive.
That said, Amanda is describing PUNITIVE spanking, which is something entirely different, one sided, and designed to control a woman, not tittilate her.
And have you checked this little blog out?
http://disciplinedfeminist.blogspot.com/
It will make you scream a bit.
The DD feminists appear to deal a lot in archetypes and perhaps some evo bio, as if woman’s true nature is submission.
They are always clear to point out that it’s their choice, that they aren’t demeaned, even as they are sitting in a corner with a reddened rear end for some infraction.
Makes me crazy.
i understand that to those of us who identify as feminist and progressive it seems utterly fucked up, but it’s also (at least in theory) consensual. there are a number of odd relationship choices that i just don’t “get” (zoophilia comes to mind), but i don’t think i’m in much of a place to tell people how to live their private lives.
Wait — you think that if a guy has sex with a horse, that’s fine because the horse consented? And that once he does, he’s in a romantic relationship with the horse? And that it’s exactly the same as having a romantic relationship with another adult human?
That is all kinds of fucked up.
I have to wonder how many of today’s ungrateful anti-feminists were spared corporal discipline while they were still children as an indirect result of the feminist movement.
My guess? Not many. It’s that corporal punishment as a child that seems to mess with the wiring a bit and give you the desire to re-create that pain and powerlessness in a safe way as an adult with a romantic partner.
(Yes, I’m oversimplifying. But it’s a factor.)
@28
i’m not going to wade into what i’m sure would devolve into a silly internet shouting match about consent & zoophilia, but my point was that it falls (like this DD weirdness) into the large category of “activities you’re either Into or you’re Not”. i could just have easily said adult-baby diaper play, blood play, scat, incest, or any number of things that are repugnant to those not involved. while they’re all things that are definitely “Nots” to me, i just don’t care if they’re things other people are “Into”.
Yeah, that Disciplined Feminist woman isn’t even a feminist. She wants the word to mean “someone who embraces her oppression because she’s a woman,” which is, last I checked, the exact opposite of what it means. Arguing from root words and other such bullshit is desperate grabbing. It’s weird—she’s clinging desperately to some thread of self-esteem. But she has to rearrange reality to even get there, because dropping the DD stuff and having her boyfriend leave her is out of the question at this point. Too bad.
she can get herself a sissymaid and spank him for not doing the dishes.
Did you notice how you jumped from claiming rough gender equality in the BDSM scene right into assuming feminization for a man in a submissive role? Because I sure did.
Taking apart the link between “female/feminine” and “submissive/passive/subordinate”
They might want to work just a tetch harder on that part.
Furthermore, the BDSM world does indeed look relatively enlightened from a safe distance away. Right up until you start looking into, specifically, places for male doms and female subs, and then nine times out of ten you’re right back in the Domestic Discipline cesspit. It’s not that they don’t have as much misogyny as the rest of the world, it’s just that they call it a “kink” that is thus above criticism, rather than just plain “how people are.” Whether this is much of an improvement is an open question.
Hm, erotic (bdsm) spanking vs punitive (dd) spanking.
Punitive spanking is when she gets spanked for not doing the dishes, and is negatively reinforced to wash them promptly next time.
Erotic spanking is when she gets spanked for not doing the dishes, and is positively reinforced to let them sit there next time.
(Substitute appropriate pronouns into the above heteronormativity as required.)
It’s as if these husbands’ self-image will shatter if they’re not the head/leader/boss/patriarch of something. What’s their problem that they so desperately need god/evpsych to tell people that they’re in charge?
(Apparently god never tells these CDD husbands to be spanked by their wives. Now that would be a heavenly missive worthy of reposting on Pandagon.)
Sophonisba:
I won’t declare that the behavior of BDSMers is above criticism, but kinkiness itself should be.
Strange things turn people on sometimes. That’s nobody’s business, if the satisfaction of those turn-ons is done in an ethical manner.
And you will run into some resistance on some levels depending on how you criticize. As I said above, there are folks into spanking who hate the actual spanking part, but are happier having been spanked (or knowing that they might be/will be) than they would be if they weren’t. So, “I hate it when my top spanks me” is not necessarily an indication that the top has behaved unethically.
I’m inclined to think that the adrenaline released in association with a beating and the heightened emotional state caused by the adrenaline could create an associative bond. If nothing else it’s exciting and that feeling of excitement could easily be mistaken for the excitement of romance and love.
I have to say I’m more than a little disturbed by the number of people here who can’t tell the difference between the consensual power exchange of BDSM and the violent enforcement of gender stereotypes as a performance for some higher power.
Especially when, aside from media portrayals, there’s about an even ratio of male to female subs to the same gender ratio of doms within consensual hetero BDSM. Of course, that’s ignoring that kink culture mostly found its roots within queer culture.
The fundamental difference is that with a few exceptions, the vast majority of the BDSM world does not justify its power dynamics by falling onto some evo-psych tropes. It’s based on what both (or more) partners enjoy.
Pathologizing people in loving, consensual relationships by equating them with people who are being abused by their partners does nobody any favours. It is extremely disrespectful and to people who have suffered and are suffering abuse, and it takes away a fucking lot of the gravity of DV to lump it with something that for many healthy, happy partners, is an expression of love. Some key differences: from all I’ve read of DD, the woman does not get a say in how, when or the context of her beating. In a BDSM relationship, the sub/bottom gets the final say in all of these, and can call off the situation at their discretion.
Full disclosure: I am a female, in a BDSM relationship. I am a top. My partner is also female.
It’s all about consent and mutual pleasure people. The awareness of the game.
If everybody in it is aware what’s going on and consent to the game, then it’s erotic.
Otherwise, it’s ‘taking advantage’. Of course then the challenge is to examine this “awareness” level.
sophonisba March 10, 2008 at 10:43 pm
then nine times out of ten you’re right back in the Domestic Discipline cesspit. It’s not that they don’t have as much misogyny as the rest of the world, it’s just that they call it a “kink” that is thus above criticism, rather than just plain “how people are.” Whether this is much of an improvement is an open question.”
Maybe you should create your own club/bdsm society then?
The point of fantasy is to be able to create whatever you think is the best ideal right?
The best analysis ever of CDD came from Infidelus Maximus:
http://infidelismaximus.blogspot.com/2007/07/ive-seen-it-all-now-i-can-die.html
Odd title for the article since IM died just a couple months back
For some reason, I almost never hear this argument in defense of NAMBLA and similar groups. Fantasies are an appropriate subject for discussion when they’re regularly acted out, when they’re embraced in the context of a community, and especially when they appear to match and reinforce existing harmful beliefs and practices. This isn’t merely about BDSM, either — BBW fetish, disability fetishes, ethnic/racial fetishes, etc. all encompass problematic behaviors.
Suffice it to say that I’m BDSM friendly, even in the context of dom male/sub female. I’d be a hypocrite otherwise. But the idea of “fantasy” is insufficient to explain away certain elements in D/s.
Um, isn’t a bar of soap labeled “virgin” something that one may not use?
Sophonisba, I’m critical of het male exclusive tops in general, and of all 24/7 BDSM (a position that makes me essentially persona non grata in some circles, and really annoys some friends of mine who do or have attempted those sorts of relationships). But I’m not on board with reducing the whole BDSM community to het male tops/sub women. That’s just not the way it is. I, for example, am a traditionally masculine, submissive-oriented switchy het male bottom. (I’ll top, but it’s basically “service topping” where I aim to give the bottom the scene she’s looking for without a lot of agenda of my own.)
I have not had the chance to read Wakeman’s article. However, these DD people are almost certainly trying to back into 24/7 BDSM and justifying it with patriarchal tropes, instead of recognizing it for what it is: the equivalent of a novice driver taking a car to the Nurburgring for hot laps on track day, or a novice skier heli-skiing the no-go zones of the Canadian Rockies. Leaving aside wannabes, Goreans, posers and teenagers playing adult on the internet, within the BDSM community even people who do 24/7 play recognize that it is difficult and serious stuff with emotional consequences — ones that, as I said, I really can’t square with meaningful consent.
There are abusers out there, too; and the abuse breeds in 24/7 relationships that people can’t get out of. These DD people are creating the conditions for long-term abusive relationships, and many of those women probably think they’re just playing at it until they suddenly realize that their partners are not.
Dan Savage has his issues, but he said one thing I recall well, and that was correct. One women long ago related a story about her difficulties finding a male partner who would have rough sex with her, but then treat her decently and respectfully the rest of the time. He said, and I’m paraphrasing from years ago, you can call it whatever you want, but it will be easier to find what you’re looking for if you call it BDSM.
My comment seems to have been lost in the aether. If this is a dupe, I apologize.
Sophonisba, the BDSM community cannot be reduced to 24/7 male dom/fem sub. In fact, some of us are pretty critical of that. For my part, I’m skeptical about het male exclusive tops in general and about 24/7 play as a whole, a stance which makes is unpopular with some kinksters, including some of my friends, but I’m certainly not alone in my critique.
(I myself am a het male bottom with subbie tendencies, though I switch a fair amount, too. Also, I don’t accept the notion that there’s anything inherently feminine about submission or masculine about dominance.)
I have not yet read Wakeman’s piece, but these DD people sound like a disaster waiting to happen: since they think that male dom / fem sub is some sort of “natural” state, they must think it’s easy instead of incredibly difficult, tricky and dangerous to do what it essentially 24/7 D/s play. That’s like a novice driver taking a car onto the Nurburgring on track day. “How hard can it be?” It can be incredibly hard and scary, so much so that some of us who know a thing or two worry that it maybe ought not to be done at all, at least not without a lot of time away from the D/s dynamic for the sub to retain a sense of independence and essential equality. It reminds me of something Dan Savage (who is far from perfect) said years ago to a women looking for a partner who would have rough sex with her but then treat her like a human: you can call it whatever you want, but you’re more likely to find what you’re looking for if you call it BDSM.
By the way, I don’t know why people keep saying that the BDSM community is overwhelmingly male dom and female sub on feminist blogs, where in this corner of the universe the evidence is to the contrary. Keeping mental notes, the women who are open about BDSM on these blogs tend to be tops (Cassandra/BritGirlSF, BeccatheCyborg, Trinity, Belledame and some others that I won’t name in case they are not so anxious to be out anymore); I’m a male bottom … In fact, I can think of more people on the feminist blogs who are outside the het M/f model than within it.
“In fact, I can think of more people on the feminist blogs who are outside the het M/f model than within it.”
Well, just for argument’s sake, I find this argument slightly odd — for instance, within the feminist blogosphere, I can think of more people who disapprove of evopsych than who endorse it. That doesn’t really give me a good idea of what the ratio is outside the feminist blogosphere.
“I have not yet read Wakeman’s piece, but these DD people sound like a disaster waiting to happen: since they think that male dom / fem sub is some sort of “natural” state, they must think it’s easy instead of incredibly difficult, tricky and dangerous to do what it essentially 24/7 D/s play. ”
Good point.
On the whole BDSM thing, I thought the keywords were “safe, sane and consensual”? Has this changed?
My understanding of the above is “safe” means physically safe and emotionally safe (which means you need safewords; you need an understanding of what the apparatus you’re using might do to the person it’s being used on; you need to know of any traumas or triggers which may be relevant in the context of the scene you’re doing; you need an exit and aftercare strategy or three; you need to know how to care for the person and the equipment ; and a lot of things besides). Sane, in this context is another one of the indicators of safety: all parties have to know themselves to the extent that they can give reliable information about things such as triggers, phobias, fetishes, fantasies and similar. All parties have to know what the limits are, and where they shouldn’t be playing. Consensual pretty much speaks for itself - all parties to a scene should have the option to end the scene in question, whether they are giving or receiving, so to speak.
In many ways, an idealised BDSM relationship is much more clear-cut and negotiated than an idealised “vanilla” relationship - in a BDSM situation, you need a lot of information about your partner, about what works, what doesn’t, what triggers things, what is too much, what is too little. You can’t leave the acquisition of such information to the whole “romance” process, since there aren’t too many clear lines of communication in such situations. Instead, there has to be open and willing communication of what is and isn’t allowable. While the public perception of BDSM tends to be of the leather, the whips and the harnesses, I have a strong suspicion the real heart of BDSM is in the thing which enables them all - the communication between the various parties involved.
Now, returning to the topic, from what I can tell about the DD side of things, it doesn’t revolve around communication so much. Instead, it revolves around accepting assumptions and not questioning them - the core assumptions being the requirement of punishment by the female partner, and the obligation of the male partner to supply this punishment. There’s no considerations of safety - “don’t leave obvious marks” isn’t a safety consideration, it’s a PR consideration. Sanity isn’t considered either - the self-talk promoted within these “games” is not of a sane or uplifting variety. Instead, it’s wholly negative, and the sort of thing which would contribute to the reinforcement and strengthening of any psychological damage which was pre-existing. Consent appears to be a one-time event, which is irrevocable, rather than an every-time necessity which can be revoked at need.
I have a suspicion if someone from the DD subculture strayed into the BDSM world, they’d have a lot of trouble recognising similarities.
Mandolin, I know that the blogosphere is anecdotal rather than representative. But I don’t think anyone has expressed a view based an quantitative sampling; if we’re all going by anecdotes and impressions then how can one ignore the makeup of this very community?
(If anyone claims to have real numbers, I’ll be be shocked, and then I’ll go read the study for the caveats and the sample method. Finding the universe of BDSMers, not just those that belong to clubs or online groups, is nearly impossible.)
I’m inclined to think that the adrenaline released in association with a beating and the heightened emotional state caused by the adrenaline could create an associative bond. If nothing else it’s exciting and that feeling of excitement could easily be mistaken for the excitement of romance and love.
Sometimes, there’s something to this theory, but all too often it gets used to slam all women involved with abusers, saying they haven’t left because they love it. I think there are a handful of women so broken that they submit immediately to the beating because hey, it’s attention. Most abuse victims resist, to the point where their resistance is then exploited by MRA types to argue that DV is not a big deal. (Those studies showing that “women do it as much”? They record self-defense as violence. If you took self-defense out, then no, women do not do it as much or even in the same ballpark.)
Reading this DD article and the stuff online, my quick impression of DD women is that they don’t necessarily enjoy it, though a few have eroticized the spanking and would probably be better off doing BDSM and keeping it in the bedroom. On the whole, though, they seem to be women who submit immediately to the narrative of domestic abuse, which is that the woman is always wrong. Alluding to a comment up above and to Wakeman’s article, apparently they have a lot in common with women with eating disorders—they’ve internalized the idea that anything less than offering perfection (to a man, in this case) is a grievous sin that deserves misery and pain as punishment.
This is why, in my review of Courtney Martin’s book—which I loved—I had my reservations about how she didn’t do much to delve into male desires outside of emails from guys swearing up and down they’d rather have a woman with a few pounds around her waist than who suffers all the time from self-hatred. Some, sure. But think about these guys who eagerly jump at the opportunity to beat their girlfriends for every little imperfection. I can’t help but think there are a lot more men out there eager to get off on the superiority trip that is having someone be miserable because she can’t offer you a perfect girlfriend. (No one can, but that fact gets lost in these dynamics.)
Anecdotal evidence time here…
You know, I’ve recently in my dating adventures run across a lot of weekend-warrior type BDSM wannabes. Since I’m a het girl, these are men, and they all have been, to a one, wannabe Doms. Other then the mild curiosity about where all the male subs were hiding themselves (though alas, I myself am as vanilla as white soft serve), I also began to notice a trend. These wannabe Doms did not seem to understand the idea of consent.
They would immediately seem to assume that any woman they saw WAS submissive and just… proceed accordingly. I found myself having a lot of ’safe, sane, CONSENSUAL, buddy’ and ‘did I give you consent for play? Did you even ASK me if I was a sub? WTF are you DOING?’ conversations with these… individuals. I’m told by friends in the scene that idjits like this have always been around. But it seems like there’s suddenly a lot more of them.
I mention it because I wonder if it’s connected to this whole disturbing DD thing. A meme that ALL women are submissive, ALL women are pieces of crap that need regular brutal beatings, women don’t deserve/need/have the ability to give consent. I can’t imagine that the DD people just picked this attitude out of the aether. It’s almost like it’s seeped out of them and into the dominant culture.
i could just have easily said adult-baby diaper play, blood play, scat, incest, or any number of things that are repugnant to those not involved. while they’re all things that are definitely “Nots” to me, i just don’t care if they’re things other people are “Into”.
Again, it’s fascinating how you keep conflating legal consensual acts like scat with illegal non-consensual ones like zoophilia and incest, which most of us call “child molestation.”
Sorry, but I can’t stand by and say, “Well, it may be non-consensual and illegal, but who am I to judge?”
Djur March 11, 2008 at 1:27 am
Fantasies are an appropriate subject for discussion when they’re regularly acted out”
sure, but if every members in that fantasy group thinks it’s a good idea and in general the behavior doesn’t brake any laws then it’s none of your business.
Unless you can point harm, you don’t have a case.
What you are proposing is to force your own fantasy onto other people.
The exact same thing could be said about fundamentalist Christians. When thoughts become words and behavior, they’re fair game for analysis. Note: analysis does not mean “analysis of how to ban it.”
No need to read something I didn’t say here. I am not in favor of banning or otherwise restricting BDSM, and I believe I made that fact clear. I’m not proposing anything, except that the way BDSM reflects existing harmful behaviors in our culture is a matter to be considered by both practitioners and non-practitioners. “Fantasy” is not a free pass for unexamined behavior.
Well, really, it depends. Done with full awareness of what’s going on, DD can be a subset of BDSM.
See, one of the thrills of BDSM for some folks (never assume something is a thrill for all, or even a lot of, any group of people…) is the loss of control within accepted boundaries… like, e.g., being told you’re going to be spanked, and it’s going to hurt, but you’re *only* going to be spanked, and you know it’s going to be kept within the limits of what you can handle.
Another thing some people get off on is the notion of service and being held to an exacting standard, and being punished if the standard is not met. Sometimes this is even housekeeping chores, which can make an ordinary chore into a bit of a sex fantasy.
If a sub promises that the kitchen will be spotless by 8pm each night, and gets a thrill out of making sure that it’s done, and a lovely mixed thrill&dread of realizing that, hell, it’s 7:55, and the dishes still aren’t done, and so punishment will be meted out, well, that’s an ongoing scene, agreed to by both folks.
The big key, the thing that often bothers me about DD folks, is awareness. Some of them don’t seem to understand that these things should be negotiated and accepted, and that both parties retain full control over themselves. If she chooses to allow herself to get spanked for not having the kitchen cleaned by 8, that’s *her* choice. (Or his, but the forms of DD under discussion tend to be male-top female-bottom). Sure, he’s going to announce that it will happen, and even “force” the issue, but she still has autonomy, and can always say “stop right now, or I will go to the police.”
BDSM is about power exchange; the bottom gives up some to the top, who uses it as part of the play. But in order for that to work as expected, both parties must already hold their own personal power and autonomy.
Any form of DD that doesn’t grant full power and autonomy to the bottom, that doesn’t acknowledge that there should be negotiation and acceptance, with full awareness by all parties, is a huge risk.
On the other hand, done with full awareness, with negotiation between equal partners, it’s really no different from a well-negotiated BDSM scene that has an exceptionally long duration.
Cymbal, I think the mainstreaming of rough-sex porn is partly to blame. I’ve seen a lot of stuff that removes any of the BDSM context from face-fucking and slapping and presents it as, essentially, “how sex is.” That’s a major bad thing, IMO, because it resonates with the cultural currents of misogyny and entitlement; it reaffirms the sense that guys who wouldn’t really participate in the BDSM community that they can abuse women if they call themselves doms.
(Did I say above that I’m critical of het male exclusive tops? Yep.)
I’m not sure. On page 8 of the CDCs Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Scale we find that:
“Item 21 [has your parter ever spanked you] was deleted from the scale by scale developers due to low response rate and negative correlation with total scale.”
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Compendium/Section%20A.pdf
Something strange is obviously going on.
that’s not strange at all. People who have enjoyed a bit of spanking in bed, as many people do who aren’t otherwise into BDSM at all, are going to find it hard to respond to that question in the context of a survey about domestic violence, get confused and leave it blank.
interesting about the negative correlation though.
Negative correlation has one obvious explanation: that spanking is not a form of abuse common in DV (though maybe on the rise with DD folks), but is common among BDSMers whose relationship is non-abusive. The affirmative-responding BDSMers have in other ways relationships with egalitarian structures and open communication, and so score low on the rest of the scale.
“On the whole BDSM thing, I thought the keywords were “safe, sane and consensual”? Has this changed?”
Not at all.
Chiming in (full discolsure, Gay male BDSM top in a long-term relationship with a wonderful bottom).
There are a few things getting mixed up in the thread.
Absolutely, absolutely, there are creeps and assholes out there claiming to be BDSM tops, and people with damaged (for whatever reason) self-images claiming to be BDSM bottoms.
It doesn’t follow that all the people in BDSM must therefore be self-unaware posers covering psychological issues, or lying to ourselves, or any other nasty thing.
Nor does the fact that domestic discipline looks a lot like BDSM make it identically the same thing.
I agree completely with Amanda that the people who are mutually enjoying the activity should call it kink and approach it that way, leaving everyone else to stop what amounts to abuse on many levels.
There’s a mistake in assuming that we who are into BDSM will automatically excuse any act that an outsider wants to fit into the same category. I can say from experience that most often the reverse is true, and the BDSM community and serious BDSM lifestylers are usually highly sensitive to any lack of consent going on.
As described, I don’t see the kind of consent in this DD that I would need to see to support it.
And yes, there are a lot of people (sorry but unsurprised you found them, Cymbal) who have no clue at all what good BDSM looks like, and I wouldn’t even call them wannabees, since learning how to do it well or right is often the last thing they are interested in.
Bluebonnet: the reason it is “only intolerant to point this out to the D/s people” is that if your approach is as sweeping and dismissive as your posts come across, it IS intolerant to completely discount someone else’s experience simply because you don’t understand it. Not everyone involved in BDSM is lying to themselves about it, and many people, doms and subs included, find that it enriches their lives and makes them feel better and happier with themselves.
If you do limit yourselves to people who seem to be unhappy, diminished, or who refuse to self-examine, then yes, your comments are completely appropriate.
Djur March 11, 2008 at 10:11 am
The exact same thing could be said about fundamentalist Christians. When thoughts become words and behavior, ”
No it’s not. as somebody point out the case with DD, the rule is unchangeable and there is no way out for role playing. At the very least it’s a boring game, tho’ I for one think it’s an excuse to perpetuate old domination structure.
There is a subtle but fundamental difference with DD
Djur,
For what it is worth, I read your post about fantasies being open for examination exactly the way you seem to be defending it - as a neutral statement, with any condemnation reserved for a case-by-case after such examination gets done.
And I agree.
At the same time, whenever we step into judging things, the far heavier weight needs to go to the opinions of the people involved, rather than the outside observers.
Whether or not a behavior that all involved in find genuinely fulfilling (safe, sane, consensual, and everyone involved uncoerced adults) reflects societally problematical issues shouldn’t be very high up on the list at all.
For the record, I consider consent and involvement to include unsuspecting passers-by - the rules for public behavior are different than for private for exactly that reason, involving unconsenting people.
You are right that simply because something is a fantasy it doesn’t get a pass, but at the same time, something problematical to others doesn’t get a fail if it works for those involved.
It sounds as though there might need to be a distinction made between people with fetishes who ONLY objectify their objects without treating them as fullly aware individuals as well.
If someone, to use your example, has a disability fetish, and treated someone purely as a sex toy, that’s horrible. But someone with a disability fetish makes a love match with someone disabled, and the two are able to see that what others see as a negative is for them an active positive, then hooray for a world where that can happen!
I once spent too much time on CDD websites. The commentary for some parts was horrifying (go look yourselves, I already had the nightmares and don’t want to go back). Some examples:
- DD often involves activities that we have a word for in the reality-based community: rape. As in “brutal anal rape after a beating”, except that since the bible-thumping patriarch was doing it, it was called something else. We’re are talking about true cess-pits of domestic abuse in some cases - and no attempt was made by the DD community to tell the poor victim that it was rape and was going too far. This on an “open” comment board, where the victim was asking for help.
- Another favorite was the forced threesomes (are those in the bible again?)
- Not to mention the ritual genital area beatings of several women who were trying to avoid their spankings.
Feminist? not by my definition.
And in a weird way this may even give them an illusion of control. They get to choose (at least in theory) the things they get beaten or disciplined for, which is different (once again, at least in theory, aka delusion) from getting beaten or disciplined for whatever the abusive partner thinks of next, and ultimately just for existing.
I theorize that the popularity of DD is a direct response to the increasing economic pressures that force most adult women into the workplace.
When groups of traditionalist men are confronted with female superiors and counterparts with whom they must deal in order to survive economically, they grow resentful. DD is a perfect channel for that resentment while also reaffirming the idea that no matter what happens at work, there is an environment where the traditionalist man is firmly in control, where his ego can never be challenged.
I also happen to be of the opinion that just because a wife or girlfriend consents to participate in the DD activities doesn’t mean the activities themselves aren’t harmful. After all, when a woman (and her child[ren], if applicable) is dependent upon a man economically, all consent is suspect because the possibility for coercion is built into the situation.
Good point, mezosub.
I’d also agree with Thomas upthread that the prevalence of clueless male doms and, to some extent, female subs is definitely reinforced by mainstream porn. Specifically, the mainstreaming of BDSM porn, which I’m pretty sure is almost always the first taste people get of BDSM these days. Sure, there’s the “real” BDSM porn where people do the things they actually do, which (as several have pointed out) is about 50/50 in terms of the genders of top and bottom. But then there’s the mainstream, San Fernando Valley stuff, which is very adherent to the usual gender roles in porn sex, i.e. very very female-as-object, male-as-subject. I suspect a lot of these clueless tops are getting their ideas from here.
And yeah, they sure are creepy. I live in Los Angeles and see this paradigm a lot, which supports this hypothesis — after all, there’s nowhere in the world more video-driven and image-centered than Hollywood.
Murcielago, I don’t want to dignify the assholes like Max whatsisname by calling them BDSM porn. The slap-and-choke is a genre of its own that specifically removes the cultural signifiers of SSC BDSM. These videos don’t have any leather, pride flags, purpose-built restraints of impact toys like floggers and riding crops.
When I think BDSM porn, I think of the stuff that clearly marks itself as by BDSMers for BDSMers. One can criticize Peter Acworth (he of the Kink.com empire) for selling out in some ways, but he is a BDSMer, and he situates the material very clearly in the realm of consent using pre- and post-play interviews where top and bottom often sit together. (And he has a site with men bottoming to women, with the same interview-play-interview setup. I think, BTW, that he got that format from the defunct Insex, where top and webmaster PD began scenes with on-cam interviews. Insex was the last place where women bottomed to men that I was willing to patronize — I saw PD stop live, webcast scenes where the bottom was not having fun; and I saw him refuse to do something a bottom asked him to do because it was past his limits.)
BTW, Murcielago, is your name a reference to the bat, the bull or the car?
Speaking as a long-time vanilla observer of BDSM, it’s actually my impression that there’s long been more female-D/male-s than visa verse. My assumption has been that that’s because male-D/female-s overlaps with traditional gender roles, so people who like that sort of thing don’t need to go to a subculture to find it.
What I know of 24/7 D/s is extremely problematic, I think because traditional gender roles are so close to 24/7 D/s– and that’s what CDD is illustrating. It’s really easy to get into the habit of treating the sub like dirt — like a traditional woman, of no intrinsic worth except how she makes the man feel.
Conversely, one of the first things I noticed in modern BDSM (the kind Thomas is talking about, that arose post-WWII in the gay leather scene) is the focus on the sub-bottom-masochist, hir reactions & needs. A good Dom (as I understand it) pays a great deal of attention to the sub, and takes thought & care to give hir what ze needs. This, in itself, inverts traditional gender roles — because in BDSM-y traditional roles, it’s the woman’s job to pay attention to the man, to think about him.
The core of privilege is what you don’t have to notice — other people have to notice *you*. Modern BDSM puts privilege on the bottom; CDD nails it to the top. That’s one reason I think the CDDers can’t move into BDSM, and why Thomas is right to be so suspicious of het male tops.
This is a pretty interesting thread in light of the prostitution discussion going on over at the Spitzer thread. I am a really strong believer in women’s agency, and anytime a woman is a supporter of something that seems sexist/patriarchal, I try to look for what the woman might get out of it emotionally or psychologically. I don’t just mean honorary man Ann Coulter types, but what, for example, women get out of embracing traditional gender roles or traditional religious restrictions, what self-justifications and rationales they use, etc. At the same time, we’re all affected really profoundly by the society in which we live, the messages we receive, and it can be very difficult, even at an individual level, to sort out why we feel the way we do, why we make the decisions we do. Acting as if your oppression is actually a role that you freely embrace can be a very powerful psychological self-defense mechanism. That women often are in a vulnerable physical and economic situation vis-a-vis men makes it even more complicated to sort out true agency.
And Thomas, thanks for your very thoughtful, nuanced comments. Very refreshing after the brow-beating being administered over on the Spitzer thread.
Chingona, don’t thank me yet. I’ve commented on Spitzer in several places to the effect that he should be charged with a Mann Act violation for inducing the interstate trafficking of a sex worker. He prosecuted sex workers, he induced them to work without condoms, and I’m altogether not okay with men paying for sex for a variety of reasons that all come down to the conditions that generally obtain and the whole cultural current of male entitlement to treat women as commodities. I have a nuanced stance on BDSM; I have a critical but nuanced stance on porn. On prostutition, I’m a Swedish-model proponent.
“That women often are in a vulnerable physical and economic situation vis-a-vis men makes it even more complicated to sort out true agency.”
Seems to me to be particularly true of the women most likely to find themselves in the DD situation, those raised solidly within a rigid Christian fundie worldview. I wonder if there is a high correlation between this and homeschooling and/or small, rigid private schools?
I know - I saw your comments on the Spitzer thread. They were thoughtful and nuanced there too. The brow-beating I was referring to was pro-prostitution Chet accusing Kathleen of wanting women to be raped and beaten because she thinks prostitution is exploitative. I’m not going to go on because it’s unfair to call him out on a thread that he’s not participating in, but if you haven’t been back over there, well, it got really ugly.
I think it was Carol Tavris who pointed out that traditional or religious gender roles for women almost always go along with a similar set of restrictions for men (though men get to violate them more often). So a woman is adhering to the role in the unspoken assumption that in return she’s getting a husband who won’t sleep around or drink too much or whatever. It’s a “rights and responsibilities” construction.
It’s when the husband isn’t keeping up his end of the bargain that things get really ugly.
I agree, but I think the religious aspect goes deeper than just some sort of romanticized marital feudalism. This is a little metaphysical, but the religious worldview also is fundamentally opposed to the idea of individual rights that informs a lot of modern thinking, especially progressive thinking. In a religious worldview, you do not belong to yourself. God is more powerful and wiser than any human, so if he said we had to do it, we have to do it. If you listen to people talk about the spiritual signficance of their particular brand of self-discipline, you often will hear people talk about the way in which they are compelled to be a better person, to set aside desires, etc. Priestly celibacy or Muslim women who veil or the woman Amanda referred to who felt a great sense of accomplishment over “reclaiming” her virginity. So, while I don’t go for that personally, I can imagine that people get something out of it - something that to them is very real. Where I get suspicious, as a feminist, is how much heavier these burdens tend to fall on women than on men. While men might be similarly barred from carousing and sleeping around, they are not barred from leaving the house, having their own friends, making their own decisions. And that is where the official explanations look weak and it starts to look like an excuse to control women and especially their sexuality.
While men might be similarly barred from carousing and sleeping around, they are not barred from leaving the house, having their own friends, making their own decisions. And that is where the official explanations look weak and it starts to look like an excuse to control women and especially their sexuality.
I’m not sure I was clear about Tavris’ view — basically, she felt that the women in the situation were going for the stable known (even if that known kinda sucked for them) rather than going for the unstable unknown. Sure, you could break out and try and find someone to forge an egalitarian relationship with, but you’d have to reject (and be rejected by) all of your family and friends and be left with no recourse if things didn’t work out. And there are social upsides to conformity. We may have rejected those upsides as being worth the oppression, but we shouldn’t pretend those upsides don’t exist at all.
Oops — those upsides as NOT being worth the oppression.
Stupid typing fingers.
“In a some religious worldviews, you do not belong to yourself.”
There, fixed that for you.
Mnemosyne, I think I got your point. I was just trying to expand on what other, maybe less tangible, benefits people might get from taking on traditional roles or voluntarily complying with otherwise onerous religious obligations. Again, because I am a big believer in agency, I have a hard time going for the “they’re all brainwashed” argument (which I understand was not the one you were making - you’re making a rational actor argument, and I’m making a parallel, not mutually exclusive rational actor argument). Either way, we’re good on this one, I think.
In ancient Rome it was acceptable to beat one’s wife almost arbitrarily, and if given a cause as simple as insolence, a Roman senator could well kill his wife and be lauded by the Senate for taking appropriate action to show the women their place.
In defense of the ancient Romans (since they aren’t around to defend themselves), the so-called patria potestas wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be. Yes, the Twelve Tables said that a man could legally kill his wife for looking at him funny, but in practice… well, evidence is sketchy, but probably not so much.
As for domestic violence: a Roman man could generally beat his wife, but actually the practice of wife-beating (widespread well into the modern period) was considerably more limited and even controversial in Rome than in, for example, Victorian England.
Alana: that’s interesting, thanks for the info.
chingona: at some point I think insisting on people’s “agency” becomes pointless, especially if they use their agency to give up their agency by putting themselves completely under the power of someone else. And there’s a point at which the presence of agency starts mattering less than whether or not it’s being used for good or ill. This is especially true when agency is being given up, whether through abuse of drugs or willful ignorance or submission to a religious/familiar order that actively denies your agency.
I think the line between 24/7 BDSM and DD is pretty darn fine–there are plenty of BDSM practitioners who secretly (or openly) believe that all or most women are submissive, so drawing a distinction based on gender roles strikes me as a bit arbitrary. 24/7 BDSM doesn’t always have an “out” the way BDSM-for-fun does–yes, the people involved are legally free to walk out, but I’m not convinced they’re always psychologically able to, and I’ve seen some pretty terrifying (hopefully not legally binding) “contracts” floating around. It personally wigs me the hell out, and I think setting a couple up so one person is the arbiter of “appropriate” behavior and decides when the other is out of line isn’t a very healthy way to deal with conflict. So I’m pretty much in agreement with Thomas, above, and yeah, it’s not always a popular opinion.
Anyway, my point is that BDSM (like Christianity) is a continuum, and we can’t say “Those people are good BDSM practitioners (or Christians) and those other people aren’t because I don’t like their interpretation.”
yyzian–erotic spanking also (and more often) involves someone saying “Hey, I like being spanked” and his or her partner obliging. My partner and I–who keep the kink strictly in the bedroom and strictly mutual, don’t pretend either of us is “punishing” the other. He likes the way flogging feels; I like the way spanking feels. We also like lots of things most people wouldn’t be at all shocked by, like cuddling and vanilla sex and being nauseatingly cute in public.
Full disclosure: sub-leaning female switch, in LTR with dom-leaning male switch, BDSM dynamics apply only to sex (and only when we feel like it), not to every day life. And I know when I originally met him, he was pretty quiet about being a switch because he’d had bad experiences with people making assumptions if he identified himself as a switch–which is one of the reasons I don’t like the BDSM scene. There ARE assholes who assume subs and switches are common property, or who assume that all relationships are 24/7 (my partner does not tell me what to do except in an agreed-upon private sexual encounter, thank you very much, and I can always say no).
See, here’s the thing about 24/7 D/S (I hate the stupid capitalization shit):
It almost never lasts.
I’ve been in two relationships (with white male doms, no less!) that were allegedly 24/7. That lasted maybe a month. What most Domly Dom types fail to realize is that assuming that degree of control over someone is a hell of a lot of work. Especially if you’re already in a non-D/S relationship, like marriage or living together or even good friends, the normal patterns of the relationship will inevitably reassert themselves over time. That’s when you start noticing that you’d rather snuggle in front of the TV together than play, or you hear things like, “Dammit, Master–I thought I asked you to take out the garbage!” 24/7 D/S is one of those things that’s great in theory, but tends not to work in practice (always assuming all parties are sane to start with).