The article above is from a blog that was published in 2009, the post itself was written and first published in 2007. It's been a long time (in internet time units) since this hit the interwebs, but it is as applicable today as it was then. When the rants of the blogosphere haven't changed in several years, you know we're getting nowhere. This article was linked by maymay in the comments for Doms Don't Cry on labcoatlingerie.
Regardless, I am torn between being intensely offended by this post by Helena von Salome and agreeing with a good swath of it. I agree that submissive women need to embrace their submission, accept it as their position of power (no pun intended) and then run with it. You like what you like, lady, and that gives you a platform and strength to say 'bug off' to everyone who wants to demean you.
I don't even know if this is a thing anymore or if it's starting to graduate to a straw-man-stereotype from a billion years ago, but here are the bits that ruffle my feathers:
"The dominatrix appears to turn this roleplay on its head, but in fact does no such thing. She merely permanently stalls the process at the second-to-last step, still in the wanting but never the having, so that the man never loses interest. Even the sex act, in the most extreme male-submissive fantasies, lacks climax or satisfaction. In this way the dominatrix is exactly the same as the girl who keeps waiting one more date to actually fuck whoever she’s dating, in the certainty that she can only keep his interest as long as she keeps him frustrated. One of these women would be called “tease” in a worshipful tone, and the other in a derogatory tone, but the meanings are effectively synonymous."
I know that the femalearrogance author, von Salome, is speaking in broad, stereotypical generalities (as is necessary in a post about broad cultural stereotypes), but I would like to think that I can STILL do my part in furthering the cause of social justice by being a powerful woman. Not a woman who is powerful because she is adopting masculine traits or because she is playing into the insidious 'untouchable' trope, but a woman who is powerful because she works from the strengths of her desire and convictions. I want to change preconceptions based on the fundamental truth that it's not a bad thing for me or any woman to enjoy sex, to talk about it, and to explore it. This works on all sides of whatever domme/sub fence you care to erect.
Also, I'm a terrible tease in all the best ways. What I want out of the whole teasing thing is desire that will be consummated when I want it to be consummated. It is a structure of delaying pleasure and, subsequently, fulfilling that pleasure on a timetable set by the dominant partner. I take umbrage that the stereotype is Ice Queen - and that all actions attributed to it are heinous - because of the insinuation (or blatant implication) that the teasing model doesn't get me just as hot as it would my boyo. As if I'm an automaton that wouldn't enjoy a man's tormented arousal until such time as I took advantage of it. Disagree and disapprove.
I am also angry as hell at femalearrogance's assertion that:
"Sex-positive feminism attempts to counter or disprove that assertion, but I’m not going to do that, because that’s silly. Of course, if you see every man as metonymic for the patriarchy, a blowjob is a woman surrendering to the patriarchy. It’s a blowjob! She’s getting on her goddamn knees and sucking cock! Don’t try to tell me there’s not an inherent, violent power dynamic there. Come on."
If von Salome thinks it's silly, I think they're full of shit. I read the rest of the article for some indication that this was said in jest or in satire, but unless I missed something I can only conclude that this was said perfectly seriously. What a load of horse pucky.
The article goes about 'the inherent violence of sex' and the 'inherent power dynamic of sucking cock', and I'm angry at von Salome because it casts MY dominance as submission whenever I go down on a guy because I enjoy it (the feel and the pulse and the little noises he makes when I get him to abandon himself). Re-framing my experiences to fit some 'universal always'? That doesn't fly. Saying that sucking cock is a submissive act for every human being going down on someone else is not a 'natural' power dynamic, it's a 'status quo' power dynamic that simply does not apply to me.
The very idea that I would be perforce submissive upon sucking cock puts me on the defensive, as is evinced by the previous paragraph, and it places me in the uncomfortable mental position where I feel like I have to prove my dominance (however that would work) or distance myself from the idea. The whole thing is nonsense, buys into some sort of poles-are-essentially-dominant holes-are-essentially-submissive claptrap. The etymology of 'fuck' - described somewhat in von Salome's post - merely tells where the ideas first developed along with language and just because these ideas have 'always' been around doesn't meant they're correct. A good portion of her post rails at academics for how they blame culture for stuff they're unwilling to own and - at the same time - she uses culture as justification for what is ultimately a type of essentialism that I simply cannot agree with.
I refuse to consider myself anything but normal, because considering myself abnormal allows me to be shuffled off to the side and ignored as an outlier.
Similarly, I want to distance myself from the idea that all sex requires violence or that sex IS violence in and of itself. I find that a damaging attitude to take. The joy and pleasure I take away from sex is not the same joy and pleasure as I take away from violence. Yes they can mingle and it can be hot when they do mingle, but they're not the same emotion. Violence can LEAD to sex - I am always ridiculously horny after action movies - but not because they're inextricably entwined. A 'but biologically, all humans are wired for violence' is not a good enough argument for me to agree that every penis-in-vagina is violent or even submissive. Those noises I'm making can be mistaken for pain, but I can assure you they're not, in fact, pain.
Mocking the idea that sex is NOT violence ignores the negative connotations of violence-as-bad. Now, I realize that - as Hamlet suggests - "[..]there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Sure, but violence indicates an intent to harm as part of the very basic definition. My bedpartner would certainly like to avoid harming me with his oh-so-manly appendage. Biting is another story, something that I enjoy and is quite certainly violence and I quite positively correlate with sexual arousal, but just because it goes together like peanut butter and jelly doesn't mean they need always be paired. Jelly and, say, butter is also acceptable. As is jelly and scones with tea. And jelly all over your partner...
But I digress. Lastly:
"Real deviance, however, has deeper roots. Real deviance is understanding that all sex is inherently dangerous, and inherently liberating, and that that liberation, that revolutionary potential, can be accessed if you approach any kind of sex as deviant"This only works if danger is positive. Live dangerously, with great risk and great reward, and an understanding that all worthwhile things involve a certain amount of venturing outside of your comfort zone. An REM song much on my mind that kind of hints at this is 'Walk Unafraid' with its sentiments of wanting to shucking of fear and worry to be able to walk, stumbling, courageous, clumsy, and unafraid.
I realize this is a response to an old old post, but I don't care. I'm struggling with hammering out a space for myself within feminism, BDSM, kink-in-general, and the blogpost sparked a lot of anger that I needed to sort through.
No comments:
Post a Comment