Help me with a character: arguments about BDSM

[SimonBrooke]

I'm writing a story which is a dialectical piece about BDSM. The reason I'm writing it is because there seems to be an increasing crackdown on 'deviant sexuality' here in Scotland - it's now illegal to possess a 'picture of rape', although how you're supposed to be able to tell whether a person in a picture is consenting or not is hard to see; I think that the courts will interpret this as making the possession of any picture of forceful sex illegal.

I don't make pictures, but I do write stories; and if the pictures are made illegal how long is it before the stories follow?

So what I'm planning to do is is write a story which is about 'deviant sexuality' - BDSM - and use it as a tool to discuss attitudes to BDSM, and to defend the right of those of us who are kinked that way to express our sexuality.

And to do this I need a character to put the opposite point of view - that deviant sexuality is dangerous, wrong, and should be controlled. I've made her a police inspector, leading a rape investigation team. She exists in the story so that my protagonist - a very articulate masochistic submissive - can have a dialogue with her and thus expose her thoughts.

The real facts on the ground are that here in Scotland domestic violence really is an epidemic - way too high, and that rape here is very rarely successfully prosecuted. There's a very strong link between drug addiction and prostitution, especially in our bigger cities. So it isn't unreasonable for my foil character to see BDSM as just another case of ugly domestic violence, and part of a pattern of behaviour which readily leads to rape .

But I find I'm writing a cardboard cutout figure, and the arguments I'm giving her are too obviously aunt sallies. This story isn't going to work unless I make my inspector a rounded character with good, reasonable arguments which are not simply grounded in ignorance and prejudice.

Help me out here, guys. Help me with arguments that a sensible person might make as to why there's a public policy interest in cracking down on 'pictures of rape', and on people who play with whips and chains.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Twenty years ago therapists who treated sex offenders believed that photos and stories created a conditioned response in the offender, so the offenders were 'encouraged' to masturbate while reading stories or viewing photos of 'normal sex.' This is the Behaviorist School of thinking. Whack your penis with a hammer when you think of live boys or dead girls. It's Pavlov's old thesis.

So your character will likely assert the Behaviorist spin: Looking at naughty photos and reading smut will make you likely to do the acts with everyone! So we have to nip it in the bud to save your soul and protect the widows & orphans.

 

[mistressmaxine]

I'm writing a story which is a dialectical piece about BDSM. The reason I'm writing it is because there seems to be an increasing crackdown on 'deviant sexuality' here in Scotland - it's now illegal to possess a 'picture of rape', although how you're supposed to be able to tell whether a person in a picture is consenting or not is hard to see; I think that the courts will interpret this as making the possession of any picture of forceful sex illegal.

I don't make pictures, but I do write stories; and if the pictures are made illegal how long is it before the stories follow?

So what I'm planning to do is is write a story which is about 'deviant sexuality' - BDSM - and use it as a tool to discuss attitudes to BDSM, and to defend the right of those of us who are kinked that way to express our sexuality.

And to do this I need a character to put the opposite point of view - that deviant sexuality is dangerous, wrong, and should be controlled. I've made her a police inspector, leading a rape investigation team. She exists in the story so that my protagonist - a very articulate masochistic submissive - can have a dialogue with her and thus expose her thoughts.

The real facts on the ground are that here in Scotland domestic violence really is an epidemic - way too high, and that rape here is very rarely successfully prosecuted. There's a very strong link between drug addiction and prostitution, especially in our bigger cities. So it isn't unreasonable for my foil character to see BDSM as just another case of ugly domestic violence, and part of a pattern of behaviour which readily leads to rape .

But I find I'm writing a cardboard cutout figure, and the arguments I'm giving her are too obviously aunt sallies. This story isn't going to work unless I make my inspector a rounded character with good, reasonable arguments which are not simply grounded in ignorance and prejudice.

Help me out here, guys. Help me with arguments that a sensible person might make as to why there's a public policy interest in cracking down on 'pictures of rape', and on people who play with whips and chains.

I seem to be popping up everwhere today!! I am quite good at characters. PM me if you want with what arguments you feel she has used that make her a cardboard cutout, love the phrase, and I'll see if I can help. Nae promises. I am good at building on the existing but need the existing to build!

 

[freshface]

The police woman is a nice foil. How long will this be? Would it be possible to tell it from the police woman's POV, at least at first? She could express a lot of her views regarding domestic violence to her partner while responding to a real rape or domestic violence situation. Gets it all out there without so much cardboard or lecture. Let our heroes be the next call and introduce them to us through her eyes. Many women in abusive situations will lie about the relationship and how they were injures.Let us believe that we're headed down that road with the BDSM couple too, before gradually showing that they are consensual. It's believable that the submissive in a situation like this would have to be very convincing and answer a lot of questions.

 

[SimonBrooke]

The police woman is a nice foil. How long will this be? Would it be possible to tell it from the police woman's POV, at least at first? She could express a lot of her views regarding domestic violence to her partner while responding to a real rape or domestic violence situation. Gets it all out there without so much cardboard or lecture. Let our heroes be the next call and introduce them to us through her eyes. Many women in abusive situations will lie about the relationship and how they were injures.Let us believe that we're headed down that road with the BDSM couple too, before gradually showing that they are consensual. It's believable that the submissive in a situation like this would have to be very convincing and answer a lot of questions.

She isn't the POV character; my protagonist the the POV character. But I can give the inspector a lot of space to talk, and to set out her stall. My protagonist is one of the police women who works directly under the inspector (who is to some extent her mentor), so they work on the same cases and have plenty of opportunity to discuss them. One of the cases they're working on is a rape and murder which the inspector believes happened as part of a BDSM scene.

My protagonist becomes interested in BDSM, and discovers her masochism, as a consequence of working on precisely these cases. Until late in the story the inspector assumes that my protagonist is vanilla, and feels betrayed when she finds that she's joined the deviants.

 

[3113]

But I find I'm writing a cardboard cutout figure, and the arguments I'm giving her are too obviously aunt sallies.

This has always been the problem with stories written to lecture and postalize to people, rather than to tell a story. Head on back to the old tales with characters named "Virtue" and "Vice" and such

Your first problem is that your police woman is likely a "Strawman" which I gather means the same as "aunt sallies" (never heard that term). Meaning that the deck is already stacked in favor of your "Hero." His arguments are strong, hers are weak.So. The first thing to do is start by saying, "Are any of the arguments on the other side good ones and hard to knock down?" Give your policewoman the *good* arguments, not the weak ones. Make it hard on your hero. This will develop her character.

Next, decide on the nexus point between the two characters. BDSM is often about control and loss of control. Rape is often about the same thing. Who is in control. Who has the power. A police woman is all about maintaining order and control over out of control situations. Think of her as a woman arguing for civilization--not cold Nazi like order, but polite, courteous, kind order. How can you explain BDSM as being civilized rather than primal to such a person, someone who is going to see all the whips, chains and other such paraphernalia as coming out of dark, uncivilized times?

Putting it another way, a good way to develop character in the two, is to think of them as even larger than they are. Not just pro-BDSM and con-BDSM, but Primitive vs. Civilized--or so it seems on the surface, but is it?

Finally, what is the story? It's not just a matter of the Police woman running into this guy and having an argument with him, right? So why is she there? Did he get robbed? Robbed of his bondage gear maybe Or seriously robbed? Why is she investigating him? And how does the story go? If you make this into some sort of whodunit mystery, with her playing Investagator and him her guide through his world, and the two of them both trying to solve some mystery, then you can have your cake and eat it, too. She can ask questions, he can lecture, and yet it's relevant to the story as it solves the mystery.

Does that help? (Scotland, huh? sigh I do so love Scottish accents....)

 

[Netzach]

On my most disgusted with the scene days, I view it as a very bourgeois thing. If the police inspector has a bit of a marxist leaning, it's very easy to view it as the option of the over privileged to act out sham versions of the exploitation that people are unwillingly subject to every day as their reality, and kind of an insult to the existence of exploited people.

Slavery isn't just a quaint M/s subcultural thing, it's real.

So you might pull some of that outlook in - it's less aunt sally and more jaded frontliner who actually has to deal with things. Maybe she grew up really blue collar, with a petty criminal dad who was always getting beaten on or something.

 

[3113]

She isn't the POV character; my protagonist the the POV character. But I can give the inspector a lot of space to talk, and to set out her stall. My protagonist is one of the police women who works directly under the inspector (who is to some extent her mentor), so they work on the same cases and have plenty of opportunity to discuss them. One of the cases they're working on is a rape and murder which the inspector believes happened as part of a BDSM scene.

My protagonist becomes interested in BDSM, and discovers her masochism, as a consequence of working on precisely these cases. Until late in the story the inspector assumes that my protagonist is vanilla, and feels betrayed when she finds that she's joined the deviants.

I don't think this is going to work if you want to avoid sounding like you're postalizing. What you've got is a female cop finding out she likes BDSM and trying to convince her boss, who thinks she's gone crackers because she wants to be tied up and beaten, that BDSM is a good thing. Frankly, if I were a fanatical inspector who believed that BDSM was bad for women, I'd think my underling had been corrupted and brainwashed, and maybe had something in her history of mental problems. I wouldn't listen, I wouldn't be convinced.

First, I'm her teacher, I know better. Second, the argument, from the lips of a woman, comes across as saying, "Women like to be tied up, beaten and raped." Rather than "People like to be tied up and beaten and surrender control." You reinforce the argument of the other side (BDSM is bad) by implying that you, the pro-BDSM person, believe that a woman in control (a cop) really doesn't want to be in control. She want to surrender it.

Yeah, that's what all rapists say to excuse rape.

Who on the other side of the fence is going to be convinced by your argument if it comes out of the mouth of a woman who is in a position of power? It comes across as if you're using the old stereotype that women in power want to be bossed around--as in "Taming of the Shrew." And that makes it seem like you're into BDSM for your own chauvinistic, male sexual fantasies, not because some women really want that or that it can be good for them.

What you want to argue is that BDSM is full of *people* who want this, and both sexes like to either take control or surrender control. Make only one character a cop, that simplifies things--this is your protagonist. Give this character an investigation that leads them into the BDSM world. Give them some sort of guide--and let them discover the joys of BOTH sides--surrendering control and taking control.

 

[sr71plt]

Can't help you with what you directly ask, but the standard way of "humanizing" such characters is to either give them an unrelated deviance/mix of foibles of their own to complicate and make more complex their philiosopies/prejudices (like a chain-smoking vigilante narc cop--or in your instance, one who enjoys boxing matches or dog fights and not able to make the connection with BDSM) or to put something in their present or past that helps explain their hard-lined stance and makes their stance at least mootable. You need to make them a person of more than the single dimension you need for your storyline.

 

[Corylea]

But I find I'm writing a cardboard cutout figure, and the arguments I'm giving her are too obviously aunt sallies. This story isn't going to work unless I make my inspector a rounded character with good, reasonable arguments which are not simply grounded in ignorance and prejudice.

I told you this months ago; I'm glad you've figured it out for yourself, so now you'll believe me.

I didn't think you'd gotten the wrong arguments; I thought you'd gotten the wrong character to deliver them. Arguments against BDSM range from the naive ("Nobody could actually consent to stuff like that") to the psychological ("Even if people think they want that, it's damaging to them) to the philosophical ("It perpetuates the old, bad, power-over dynamics that are the heart of what's wrong with this culture to begin with") to the moralistic ("It perverts something God made to be beautiful into something ugly.") But you were having those arguments delivered by a seasoned cop, one too experienced to be naive and too pragmatic to be moralistic.

I think you could have them delivered by her if you gave her another identity in addition to that of "savvy cop," one where having a blind spot around sex and power would be compelling. If she were, say, a survivor of child sexual abuse (or the mother of one or the sister of one), then it would make sense that this identity would trump her identity as a smart and experienced cop. (Yes, there are plenty of survivors who are into BDSM, but different people respond to the same life event differently; some survivors shudder at the very notion that anyone, anywhere could do these things.)

Or you could have Fleming have a brother who's a priest or something like that, someone who'd be more plausible as a naive/moralistic person when it comes to kinky sex.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Thanks everyone - these are all good and interesting ideas. The 'marxist' angle is one I hadn't seen at all, but it would work - particularly if mixed with the sort of feminism which sees any submission by a woman to a man as somewhere between false consciousness and a betrayal of the sisterhood.

And I agree - I need to find the strongest of arguments for my foil character, because otherwise the story is pointless. She really, actually, has to have better arguments than my protagonist, because the reader sees the world through the protagonists eyes and is therefore likely to sympathise with her.

 

[Adakgirl]

3113 you said:

BDSM is often about control and loss of control. Rape is often about the same thing. Who is in control. Who has the power.

I have to strongly disagree, BDSM is not at all about loss of control. Control is given up to the Dominant person by the submissive person consensually, it is not a loss. Rape is not the same thing at all. Rape is a forcing of the rapist's power and control onto an unwilling, unsuspecting victim. Not consensual, not agreed upon, taken without consent.

 

[3113]

I have to strongly disagree

*SIGH!* I wish people wouldn't miss the point! My point wasn't about whether one loses or surrenders control. I was not, in fact, saying that rape was the same as BDSM, I never have, never will, sorry if you mistook my meaning, yadda, yadda, yadda--

My point was that both BDSM and Rape have control issues in common (in one there is surrender, in the other there is taking away of control) and THIS could be a natural nexus for discussing why one person might be leery of BDSM and MISTAKENLY think it rape, while the other person knows that the two are not the same.

In short, you presented exactly the nexus point where a conversation could happen between the two that I was talking about. Thanks for the demonstration.

 

[3113]

If she were, say, a survivor of child sexual abuse (or the mother of one or the sister of one), then it would make sense that this identity would trump her identity as a smart and experienced cop. (Yes, there are plenty of survivors who are into BDSM, but different people respond to the same life event differently; some survivors shudder at the very notion that anyone, anywhere could do these things.)

Are you saying that the BDSM cop would be such a survivor? That would be a bad idea, as it would imply to the reader you're trying to convince (the anti-BDSM person) that BDSM people are are emotionally and mentally damaged by childhood abuse.

If you're telling Simon to give this background to the non-BDSM cop (again, I'd argue to have only one cop, we begin to see how two cops in the story can create confusion), then that does create a nice challenge to changing her mind, but making it "personal" really is a bit cliche. Who are the people, really, on the other side of this issue? Are they survivors of abuse, or those with abused relative taking their anger to extremes, or are they people who really don't understand those things and are just on a righteous crusade?

Make your anti-BDSM person match up with those on that side of the fence. The ones making the good arguments who seem to have the best intentions.

 

[Netzach]

I have to say that the argument against my own proclivities that gives me the most pause has always been "oh you think violence is so hot and sexy, this is because you don't have to face it down every day, asshole" and variants of that. It's the non-naive argument.

 

[NoJo]

On my most disgusted with the scene days, I view it as a very bourgeois thing. If the police inspector has a bit of a marxist leaning, it's very easy to view it as the option of the over privileged to act out sham versions of the exploitation that people are unwillingly subject to every day as their reality, and kind of an insult to the existence of exploited people.

Slavery isn't just a quaint M/s subcultural thing, it's real.

So you might pull some of that outlook in - it's less aunt sally and more jaded frontliner who actually has to deal with things. Maybe she grew up really blue collar, with a petty criminal dad who was always getting beaten on or something.

The socialist Mike Leigh lampooned Yuppie BDSM in High Hopes, 1988.

He's also probably the only director I've seen who successfully paints a sympathetic portrait of a psychopathic rapist. We see raping a woman in the opening shot.

 

[3113]

I have to say that the argument against my own proclivities that gives me the most pause has always been "oh you think violence is so hot and sexy, this is because you don't have to face it down every day, asshole" and variants of that. It's the non-naive argument.

You always make excellent points, Netzach. I'm curious, is this argument, like the upper-class one, used by people who also argue that BDSM is bad and ought to be stopped/outlawed, or just by those who want to poo-poo it?

And do you, personally, have counters for such arguments?

 

[Corylea]

Are you saying that the BDSM cop would be such a survivor?

No, the vanilla cop, her boss -- the one Simon is trying to make less cardboard.

That would be a bad idea, as it would imply to the reader you're trying to convince (the anti-BDSM person) that BDSM people are are emotionally and mentally damaged by childhood abuse.

Nope, didn't suggest that one.

If you're telling Simon to give this background to the non-BDSM cop (again, I'd argue to have only one cop, we begin to see how two cops in the story can create confusion),

I've read snippets of the story in progress, and there wasn't really any confusion. It's confusing, given Simon's short summary, but in the story, we can certainly tell one cop from another. Still, I suggested, above, that Simon consider a different character for his anti-BDSM person.

 

[Verdad]

Help me out here, guys. Help me with arguments that a sensible person might make as to why there's a public policy interest in cracking down on 'pictures of rape', and on people who play with whips and chains.

Well, as far as pictures go, you've already given the perfect argument. You can't, in fact, tell if the person in the picture is consenting. The concern is not for the viewer, his moral status and his tender psyche. The concern is for the model, who might have actually been held against her will and forced to do something she didn't want to. For this very reason, BDMS porn makes it a point to show the actors relaxing post scene. Lacking the signs of artifice, a picture of a forcefully taken woman with tears streaming down her face might well be a picture of a real crime.

Because of that, I have trouble imagining the inspector getting bent out of shape over BDSM. If a bunch of middle-aged people like to run around dressed like Batman because it gives them stiffies, what is it to her? A point of mild contempt, maybe, and nothing more. She has real slave trade to deal with. The moment you juxtapose the two in the story, it seems to me the result isn't as you might have hoped—violence-bad, BDSM-superficially similar but good, but rather violence-bad, BDSM-who the fuck cares?

You seem to need a position of moral outrage so you could defend BDSM against it. The trouble is, I can't think of any. I can see it viewed as less than healthy. I can see it viewed as wacky but basically benign. I can see it viewed as distasteful. No matter how much I search my inner file of characters, though, I can't find someone to scream, "Those people have to be stopped!!"

 

[Netzach]

You always make excellent points, Netzach. I'm curious, is this argument, like the upper-class one, used by people who also argue that BDSM is bad and ought to be stopped/outlawed, or just by those who want to poo-poo it?

And do you, personally, have counters for such arguments?

That's a good question. I suppose more the latter, but I can see it being like people who thought that cranking Hummers off the line was bad for the world or something (crazy crazy people of which I'm one) - that what's fun for someone is actually harmful for others. To the point where the notion that it's just sexual expression and should be protected as such is complicated maybe.

I also feel a split over whether the lack of outlaw status has hurt or helped SM as a culture. It definitely has *changed* it. It changes more and more in the mere decade and change I've been involved.

My personal counter? I'm positioned perfectly counter the argument. I'm college educated working class. So when other college educated working class people would school me as a yuppie, first off, I'd correct them. And point out that neither of us, via education, is in a total position of social bottom.

I'm a sexual top, but I view social interaction from the bottom, reflexively.

A lot of the leather community I came up in is, too. And I resent the idea that mostly academics can tell us what our pain is allowed to mean and not mean. I think people who are close to pain and oppression should be the first people who get to decide what it means to them and how they're going to navigate their life.

By grabbing SM away from the working class and telling them "no no, no false consciousness cookies for you" you're perpetuating further humiliating social control.

 

[NoJo]

S&M people like torturing themselves with endless questions about S&M.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Ah! The old Rabid Dog Fallacy. If youve never been a rabid fucking dog you get no opinion or license to act.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

S&M people like torturing themselves with endless questions about S&M.

Its boredom mostly, plus the delusion that the sane world gives a shit.

 

[3113]

You seem to need a position of moral outrage so you could defend BDSM against it. The trouble is, I can't think of any.

I can think of one--but it's not from the police. I think you're absolutely right that real police see so much wackiness, that they're likely to shrug their shoulders about anything that isn't a real crime. It does strain credibility that an Inspector has time to more than shake her head over BDSM folk spanking each other in a faux dungeon. And if she's involved in rapes, she's certainly have the facts. She'd know where and when the most common type of rapes occur and why, and she'd know that BDSM folk can pretty much be ignored on that score. She might, in fact, be as disgusted as anyone that she has to waste time arresting people who have such pictures, rather than putting that time to better and real use.

On the other hand, I've seen a quite a few television shows that take BDSM people to task, portraying them like people playing with something dangerous who should know better--and who, at the end of the story, find that their "play" ended tragically. I recalled one British show where girls who had never been subs, but wanted to try it out, got lured in by a serial killer, held against their will and brutally murdered. The message was very clear: BDSM is not a game or sex play, it is a dangerous thing that stupid girls try! Kids, stay away from BDSM!

In the U.S. the message I've seen when tv shows try to tackle BDSM is a little lighter--"Look at these wacky people. Not only can't we take them seriously, but we hold them in about the same contempt as we do radical animal rights people. They do stupid things and don't live in the real world."

I certainly think that people who make the decision that their tv show will be a platform to denigrate, dismiss or warn against BDSM are worth taking on.

 

[SimonBrooke]

Are you saying that the BDSM cop would be such a survivor? That would be a bad idea, as it would imply to the reader you're trying to convince (the anti-BDSM person) that BDSM people are are emotionally and mentally damaged by childhood abuse.

I have to say I don't like this idea at all. if my devils' advocate is only a devils' advocate because of her personal history, then her arguments can be dismissed. She has to be level headed and generally reasonably sensible, or however good the arguments I give her are I've already undermined them by giving them to someone who has powerful fears and issues which distort her judgement.

Well, as far as pictures go, you've already given the perfect argument. You can't, in fact, tell if the person in the picture is consenting...

Because of that, I have trouble imagining the inspector getting bent out of shape over BDSM. If a bunch of middle-aged people like to run around dressed like Batman because it gives them stiffies, what is it to her?

Well, no, in liberal parts of the world you can't. But, apparently, in Scotland, non-deviant people now can (I say apparently because I still can't, but clearly my deviance robs me of the ability). In Scotland, as of this year, even possessing pictures of 'rape and other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, whether violent or otherwise...' is a criminal offence, and can lead to you being put on the sexual offenders register. This is not funny stuff.

Our politicians passed this law, and our police services made representations to them urging that the law be passed. I blogged about it at the time, here. So the argument that the police don't want this law, aren't concerned about this matter, won't wash. From the government's consultation document I linked to above:

26. Responses from police organisations were generally in favour of the creation of a new offence. While the Scottish Police Federation (SPF, 37) did not wish to comment specifically on the moral aspects of the creation of a new offence, ACPOS, Scottish Police Authorities Conveners Forum (SP ACF, 67) and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (ASPS, 78) all cited technological advances as the main reason they consider a change in the law is required.

"Existing legislation, in the main, was drafted long before the advent of the internet, and as such requires to be critically reviewed, amended, and strengthened. " (ASPS, 78)

"Members agree that the law requires to be strengthened as all of the existing statutes referred to in this consultation were drafted to protect the public from material of this nature relevant to the available means of communication at that particular point in time. The development of the Internet and other modern communication technologies has offered individuals a faster, more convenient and, more importantly, an anonymous means to collect and distribute pornography of this type. " (ACPOS, 43)

You seem to need a position of moral outrage so you could defend BDSM against it. The trouble is, I can't think of any. I can see it viewed as less than healthy. I can see it viewed as wacky but basically benign. I can see it viewed as distasteful. No matter how much I search my inner file of characters, though, I can't find someone to scream, "Those people have to be stopped!!"

You haven't looked in Scotland, then. There are a lot of times I'm proud of my country. I was hugely proud of it last week, when we stood up for the values of compassion, and sent a dying man home to spend his last days with his family. But when it comes to tolerance of one another's sexual behaviour, we don't have nearly as much to be proud of.

I don't need a position of moral outrage to defend against. I don't want a position of moral outrage to defend against. Getting up and defending against this sort of thing in public is not going to be at all a comfortable thing to do. So I'm not writing this story for the fun of it. The gauleiters really are banging on the door; I have to defend against it.