Feminism and BDSM

[MissTaken]

Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.

I have posted with, talked with and otherwise discussed the issue with feminists. There seems to be some feeling that submissive women are a threat to feminist ideology.

Is this true?

Or, is a misunderstanding between the two sides of the issue as is suggested by this article:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sister/BDSM.html

(FYI: this article is for discussion purposes. There are points made that I personally find very good and others, well, this gall and I should have a chat! )

However, the author refers to there being "two communities." Is it possible, likely or impossible for there ever to be a community of feminist BDSMers?

 

[Shadowsdream]

Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.

I have posted with, talked with and otherwise discussed the issue with feminists. There seems to be some feeling that submissive women are a threat to feminist ideology.

Is this true?

Or, is a misunderstanding between the two sides of the issue as is suggested by this article:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sister/BDSM.html

(FYI: this article is for discussion purposes. There are points made that I personally find very good and others, well, this gall and I should have a chat! )

However, the author refers to there being "two communities." Is it possible, likely or impossible for there ever to be a community of feminist BDSMers?

The concious thought of feminism never crosses My mind so I must admit I have nothing that would be of value to add to this conversation Miss T.

 

[WynEternal]

Very interesting article, Miss T. It'll take my foggy brain a wee bit of time to digest it this morning and come up with any coherent response.

 

[MissTaken]

Well, I never really gave "Feminism" much thought beyond it being a cue word until the last few years.

So, perhaps a better question is, do submissive women and the increasingly mainstreamed nature of BDSM threaten women's progress in terms of equality?

I know feminists who say, "yes." That my desire to play a more traditional role in the home works against the "Women's Movement."

 

[lark sparrow]

Here's a conversation you might remember with some input on the subject from quite a few folks (well, minus those who took back their words )

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121926

 

[lark sparrow]

Is it possible, likely or impossible for there ever to be a community of feminist BDSMers?

Possible and likely, though I am thinking more in terms of the lesbian BDSM community, but that is my personal scope and I am quite sure that many heterosexual (or bisexual) women consider themselves feminists on either side of the whip. Feminist having a rather broad and varied definition. Nearly as bad of a word to some as BDSM is to others.

So, perhaps a better question is, do submissive women and the increasingly mainstreamed nature of BDSM threaten women's progress in terms of equality?

No, I think it gives women more freedom to do as they choose, which is not at odds with a general definition of feminism though it may clash with particular groups or intellectual theories of feminism.

I think we would need to define feminism. As the definition may include people who don't consider themselves feminists, or disclude people who do consider themselves feminists.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, I never really gave "Feminism" much thought beyond it being a cue word until the last few years.

So, perhaps a better question is, do submissive women and the increasingly mainstreamed nature of BDSM threaten women's progress in terms of equality?

I know feminists who say, "yes." That my desire to play a more traditional role in the home works against the "Women's Movement."

NOw that's silly. I AM a feminist, I don't speak for all feminists just myself. The point is to be in charge of yourself, not to have someone else telling me what you can or cannot do. If a man can't tell me that I *have* to be traditional, what right does a woman have to tell me that I *can't* IMHO, a true feminist does what the ever she wants and said "fuck-you" to anyone who tells her that she can't.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I would add that if you felt that every woman should play a more traditional role, or if you where going on tv saying that your marriage was a shambles until you embraced your god-given role as a submissive wife, or 'a woman can only truly be happy when she's serving a man' or some such drivel- yeah, that sets back the woman's movement. But I don't think your doing that.

 

[sweetnpetite]

ask your friend

Does it set back the woman's movement if the woman spanks the man?

 

[intelligencenazi]

Please excuse the choppiness and the jumping around...

I am most definitely a feminist, and in my opinion BDSM and feminism don't collide at all. I agree whole heartedly with Sweetnpetite. Feminism is about being in charge of yourself. If you enjoy BDSM than by all means you should participate in it. As a feminist, I own my body - no one else, and I'll do what I wish with it. If I want to have sex with 10 different men within a week, as long as I use protection, I don't lie to any of them, and I'm doing it for myself, that's my own business. If I want to remain a virgin for the rest of my life that's my own business. And if I want to spank or be spanked (or anything more extreme), that's my own business too. Feminism is NOT about hating sex. It's not about refusing to please a man. It's not about hating men. It's not about refusing to shave or cutting your hair short. Feminism is about knowing yourself and doing what makes YOU happy rather than bowing to traditional male/female roles. It's also about political, economical, legal, and social equality. If a male dominant likes submissive women that's his personal preference. As long as he isn't saying that all women should be submissive simply because they're women, than his preference is HIS business. If being submissive makes you happy, that's your business. You don't say that EVERY woman should be submissive - that's just what you enjoy. If you choose NOT to be submissive simply because feminists frown upon it, that's no better than a non-submissive woman acting submissive just to please society. A woman who is submissive sexually, or is a stay-at-home cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids mom does not necessarily clash with feminism at all. When she says ALL women should be the same way, THAT'S when she clashes with feminism.

 

[Sir James A]

An interesting article to be sure Miss T.

Sadly, the feminist movement in this country has gone the way of other important movements of the past. Unions and the NAACP just to name two.
I see where Martha Burke is trying to make Augusta National admit women to their previously all male country club. Is this what the feminist movement has been reduced to? Aren't there still women out there who are NOT getting equal pay? It's all about getting your face on the 6 o'clock news now. She fails to mention that women can play at Augusta, they just aren't being asked to be members, yet. There are exclusive clubs for women around the country as well.
Same with Jesse Jackson and his antics of trying to get the Detroit Lions to hire an African American head coach. Should they have at least interviewed a black coach for the job? Yes, probably. But, there is more important issues to deal with in the black community. Again, it's all about getting your face on the news. Not about getting equal pay and better education.

My own personal view is that I myself want an emotionally strong and educated woman as my submissive. I don't want a clingy doormat. I want a woman who will push me to be the best Master I can be for her. It just makes the relationship that much more intense, more fulfilling.

 

[lark sparrow]

Re: Re: Feminism and BDSM

The concious thought of feminism never crosses My mind so I must admit I have nothing that would be of value to add to this conversation Miss T.

In a way, though a bit off topic, Your thread on feminization could play into this topic. It is the flip side of the coin, but the same coin - in humanist terms. Not only women having "political, economical, legal, and social equality" with men, but men also being freed from rigorous tradional male roles. Although that might take some of the delicious naughtiness out of it.


And I neglected the men who also claim feminism in my previous posts.

 

[~ Emmeline ~]

An interesting article to be sure Miss T.

Sadly, the feminist movement in this country has gone the way of other important movements of the past. Unions and the NAACP just to name two.

I see where Martha Burke is trying to make Augusta National admit women to their previously all male country club. Is this what the feminist movement has been reduced to? Aren't there still women out there who are NOT getting equal pay? It's all about getting your face on the 6 o'clock news now. She fails to mention that women can play at Augusta, they just aren't being asked to be members, yet. There are exclusive clubs for women around the country as well.

Same with Jesse Jackson and his antics of trying to get the Detroit Lions to hire an African American head coach. Should they have at least interviewed a black coach for the job? Yes, probably. But, there is more important issues to deal with in the black community. Again, it's all about getting your face on the news. Not about getting equal pay and better education.

I question Martha Burke's motivation by making this a feminist issue, the case of country clubs admitting only whom they desire has been a problem forever. The community I lived in while attending high school had 2 country clubs. The regular, and the Jewish. Both accepted only who they wanted to, they are private clubs. They have come a long way in reforming the problems associated with being private clubs. Back then, it was more of a civil rights issue, where it was color, not gender that was used to exclude some that hoped to become members. Potential members can still be rejected based on their reputations and business standings. Bless her heart if she thinks she can force a private business to do anything they don't want to.

I'm not saying that women shouldn't be allowed as members. That's an internal issue, and only a rally of the governing board and total membership could change that.

Women do deserve equal pay, especially since today so many are single parents and the head of households. Single parent or not, this is a real issue. If an employer can't see to pay any woman as much as a man for the same position, they wouldn't be worth working for. Period.

Regarding the article cited at the beginning of the thread, it was well written. I have to admit, though, if I were confronted by a group of feminists throwing accusatory questions my way regarding my motivations for involvement in D/s, I'd probably just roll my eyes and walk off. Sometimes it's not worth the fight to make others see your side, especially when nothing you say will change their view anyway.

Is that being weak? No, I just don't waste my time with that type of argument. It's just like arguing religion or politics, everyone is entitled to their own views. You keep yours, I'll keep mine, and we'll both be happy.

 

[RoughPlay]

I would only want a female sub to be submissive during sex play.
The rest of the time I would want to be equal partners. I would
want her to be intelligent, well educated, emotionally strong,
independent, confident.

It would always be her free choice to be sexually submissive. It
would only work for me if she genuinely wanted it that way and
gave regular indications to reinforce this.

I think this is perfectly compatible with any sensible definition
of feminism.

It is very important that everybody is free to choice what they do
during their lives without coercion of any form either from abusive
partners or groups of people trying to impose their opinions on
lifestyle on everybody else.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

I agree with most of what has been posted. As a man, I don't want a woman who is a doormat, even if I do want her to be sexually submissive. And, in my mind, feminism is about a woman defining herself as she sees fit. If her 'natural' role is that of a submissive, then her choice should be respected, right?

 

[Pure]

Merely some thoughts, not 'answers,' on a topic of debate for the last 25 years or so (e.g., in the Coming to Power by Samois, 1983; and Pleasure and Danger by Carol Vance)

I did not find that the article of Tammy Jo Eckhart clarified very much; it seemed to avoid some key questions, like thiese:

Are there basic diffs between men and women? Are any of these to do with 'dominance' and 'submission.'

There are varieties of feminism that are pretty abstract. Take
Intelligencenazi's position -- that women should be in charge of their own lives. This variety of feminism (as far as it's been briefly described, here) appear to be compatible with any lifestyle from Orthodox Jewish, to Muslim fundamentalist to radical lesbian a la Dworkin. I.e., wherever women can say "I chose this, it's what I want.' So of course it's compatible with 'submission', as it is with joining a convent.

If IN went on to say WHY she thinks a woman shouldn't be directed what to do with her life, then we'd begin to have her answers to the questions above. And, for instance, if it's ok to submit to another or join a convent, is that really being 'in charge'? Does 'being in charge' include 'giving up being in charge'?

Just my 2 cents. Regards to Miss T and others for raising a topic that was not all exhausted in the last thread mentioned.

J.

 

[intelligencenazi]

Merely some thoughts, not 'answers,' on a topic of debate for the last 25 years or so (e.g., in the Coming to Power by Samois, 1983; and Pleasure and Danger by Carol Vance)

I did not find that the article of Tammy Jo Eckhart clarified very much; it seemed to avoid some key questions, like thiese:

Are there basic diffs between men and women? Are any of these to do with 'dominance' and 'submission.'

I say that there are not. There are people, both men and women, who prefer being submissive, dominant, and switch. It's not because of their gender; it's because of their personality and who they are. If it were a matter of gender ALL men would be submissive or dominant as would ALL women. Unless of course, you want to start calling people unnatural specimens of their gender, which is obviously not true judging from the fact that it isn't only a few unheard of people who differ from the alleged norm.

There are varieties of feminism that are pretty abstract. Take
Intelligencenazi's position -- that women should be in charge of their own lives. This variety of feminism (as far as it's been briefly described, here) appear to be compatible with any lifestyle from Orthodox Jewish, to Muslim fundamentalist to radical lesbian a la Dworkin. I.e., wherever women can say "I chose this, it's what I want.' So of course it's compatible with 'submission', as it is with joining a convent.

This "variety of feminism" is compatible with any woman's choice so long as it is an informed choice, it was not forced upon her, and it doesn't try to say that all women should make that same choice. If a woman wants to be submissive in a relationship, that's fine. It's her choice and her business so long as she A) knew what she was getting into, B) wasn't forced into a submissive relationship, and C) doesn't try to say that ALL women are submissive and should live the same kind of lifestyle.

If IN went on to say WHY she thinks a woman shouldn't be directed what to do with her life, then we'd begin to have her answers to the questions above. And, for instance, if it's ok to submit to another or join a convent, is that really being 'in charge'? Does 'being in charge' include 'giving up being in charge'?

Why a woman should control her own life should be self-evident. A woman is a human being in her own right. As a human being she has every right to do what she wishes with her life. Just like freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, and ownership of something includes the right to give that something away, control of one's own life DOES include the right to relinquish that control if one wishes.

Just my 2 cents. Regards to Miss T and others for raising a topic that was not all exhausted in the last thread mentioned.

J.

 

[Pure]

Hi IN,

Your reply is very well put! Thanks. It's great to see a high calibre of thought in yours and so many postings.

A few questions, if you don't mind? ;-)

Why a woman should control her own life should be self-evident. A woman is a human being in her own right. As a human being she has every right to do what she wishes with her life.


Well, is it self-evident or is it not? Lets take the US, as an example: To those writing the bill of rights, about 1790, the 'women' voting issue, and a number of others did not even arise. Nor did the women protest. The simple vote took an amendment to the constitution around 1920. That took a lot of lobbying by educated and high placed women, and perhaps still was opposed by a majority of women overall.

The reasons you give 'is a human being...'--- why did they carry no weight with almost anyone, till, let's say, the French revolution? (where the new rights, as figured out by the majority did NOT include much in the way of women's rights)?

In broad terms, surely you don't think 'equality of all human beings' is self evident.?? The Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s and 1970s in the US dealt with Black voting rights, for heavens sakes.


Just like freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, and ownership of something includes the right to give that something away, control of one's own life DOES include the right to relinquish that control if one wishes.

So can she sell herself into slavery? Legally the answer is 'no'.
Should she be able to, according the you?

Is it 'self evident' to you that the laws are wrong? to other women?

Just wondering.... I think these questions are complicated and the answers are not so clear cut. (and I'm glad, btw, you've got your college ed., the right to vote and all that).

J.

 

[evesdream]

So, perhaps a better question is, do submissive women and the increasingly mainstreamed nature of BDSM threaten women's progress in terms of equality?

Is it possible that the feminists you know of are reacting to BDSM in it's mainstream hollywood guise?

I know feminists who say, "yes." That my desire to play a more traditional role in the home works against the "Women's Movement."

Some women think that feminist movement begins with total financial independence for all women, rather than personal, intimate or social autonomy. I bet you'll find a lot of feminists who disagree with one or the other view.

 

[evesdream]

Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.

I used to be very angsty about the apparent conflict of interests, but recently it's been a non-issue with me. Maybe I just got tired. I was about to post about the latitude of feminism these days, but thinking again about your questions, I wondered whether my recent complacency is because of things that are left unsaid within feminist circles instead of debated.

A lot of feminist verbatage has targetted male sexuality, but there are elements of female sexuality that are not issues simply because they are not spoken of in polite feminist society. Total Power Exchange is something nobody talks about. A friend of mine was forced to pull her essay from a well known, 3rd-wave, "State of the Feminist Union" collection because it described her life in total (happy) bondage to her feminist master. (Strange but true.) The book was devoted to alternative feminist realities and the editor of the book originally loved the essay, but "sick" was used by one of her advisors as a reason to finally reject it.

While some elements of BDSM have become more acceptable than ever in America, it would be interesting to see more written from a feminist perspective about the risks that some women take to fulfill their more transgressive fantasies, including those things which are (apparently) beyond the pale of SSC. Those are the fantasies and realities for some women that seem to be the most threatening to people who consider themselves feminists.

 

[DVS]

Re: Please excuse the choppiness and the jumping around...

I am most definitely a feminist, and in my opinion BDSM and feminism don't collide at all. I agree whole heartedly with Sweetnpetite. Feminism is about being in charge of yourself. If you enjoy BDSM than by all means you should participate in it. As a feminist, I own my body - no one else, and I'll do what I wish with it. If I want to have sex with 10 different men within a week, as long as I use protection, I don't lie to any of them, and I'm doing it for myself, that's my own business. If I want to remain a virgin for the rest of my life that's my own business. And if I want to spank or be spanked (or anything more extreme), that's my own business too. Feminism is NOT about hating sex. It's not about refusing to please a man. It's not about hating men. It's not about refusing to shave or cutting your hair short. Feminism is about knowing yourself and doing what makes YOU happy rather than bowing to traditional male/female roles. It's also about political, economical, legal, and social equality. If a male dominant likes submissive women that's his personal preference. As long as he isn't saying that all women should be submissive simply because they're women, than his preference is HIS business. If being submissive makes you happy, that's your business. You don't say that EVERY woman should be submissive - that's just what you enjoy. If you choose NOT to be submissive simply because feminists frown upon it, that's no better than a non-submissive woman acting submissive just to please society. A woman who is submissive sexually, or is a stay-at-home cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids mom does not necessarily clash with feminism at all. When she says ALL women should be the same way, THAT'S when she clashes with feminism.

Sorry, but I don't call this feminism. I call this basic equality among individual human beings. There are extremes in both directions, and I see these extremes as bad for everyone involved (directly and indirectly), unless the parties involved are consenting to it. Even if they are consenting to it, they have no right to say their way is better than any other's.

My lover is very much in control of her life outside of sex. She is very intelligent and not one to take any shit. As I have said in other threads, she graduated college at 19.

She is a retired corporate exec, and she lived shoulder to shoulder in this corporate world with men in an equal way for years. She told me she rarely had a problem with anyone, because she knew her job and did it very well. She was respected.

She has since retired with honors, although she still has a buisness of her own, in which she is owner-operator, and does all hiring and firing.

It is not uncommon for a person of power to seek a submissive role in sex. She is completely submissive to me, in every sexual way, but only after a common trust was developed between us. She has ultimate control, if I ever get out of hand, we both agree. This is the correct path into BDSM, in my opinion.

She is very submissive, but she still controls what happens to her, in the long run. She allows me to use her body and mind, because of the erotic feelings she gets from it. It is totally her choice, because it is her body. She does NOT call herself a feminist in any measure of the word.

I agree with you on all of your points, but I just don't call it feminism.

 

[Pure]

intelligencenazi:

I am most definitely a feminist, and in my opinion BDSM and feminism don't collide at all. I agree whole heartedly with Sweetnpetite. Feminism is about being in charge of yourself. If you enjoy BDSM than by all means you should participate in it. As a feminist, I own my body - no one else, and I'll do what I wish with it.

DVS said:


Sorry, but I don't call this feminism. I call this basic equality among individual human beings. There are extremes in both directions, and I see these extremes as bad for everyone involved (directly and indirectly), unless the parties involved are consenting to it. Even if they are consenting to it, they have no right to say their way is better than any other's.

Basic equality may be called humanism, feminism or whatever--how about 'egalitarianism'.

The problem is it's not obvious. Further, everyone's a human, so everyone is in charge of their lives is not always true, even in IN's world, I bet: how about kids?

Just my 2 cents,

 

[A Desert Rose]

Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.

I have posted with, talked with and otherwise discussed the issue with feminists. There seems to be some feeling that submissive women are a threat to feminist ideology.

Is this true?

Or, is a misunderstanding between the two sides of the issue as is suggested by this article:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sister/BDSM.html

(FYI: this article is for discussion purposes. There are points made that I personally find very good and others, well, this gall and I should have a chat! )

However, the author refers to there being "two communities." Is it possible, likely or impossible for there ever to be a community of feminist BDSMers?

I have not read any other posts on this thread, so I hope that I am not saying what others have said. Also, I have not yet read your link and will do so later this evening during a quiet time.

I come from a long line of what I call feminists. The matriarchs in my family were all hard working and smart women, right back to my great grandmother. (I am not at all saying that all feminists are smart or hardworking or that those who do not profess to being feminists are lazy and dumb. I guess I need to say that before someone jumps on me.)

But as I have posted many, many times... my submissiveness relates only to the bedroom and the Dom I am involved with. It does not interfer with my career or with the raising of my children. In those areas, I am and had to be assertive.

Unlike others, I just do not see a conflict. But what works for me is not what might work for someone else. If one knows what one wants in life and how it fits into that puzzle, I can't see how there can be a conflict.

 

[amethyst wind]

Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.

I have posted with, talked with and otherwise discussed the issue with feminists. There seems to be some feeling that submissive women are a threat to feminist ideology.

Is this true?

i am a sub.. by choice, but in no way does that, to me at least, seem that i am less of a feminist..

i chose this lifestyle.. i feel comfortable as a sub in most areas, but i would never go into a relationship with a Dom if He/She wants me to give up having a say in the relationship or being able to tell Him/Her "no i don't agree" . I believe in equality in the mainstream life of men and women. Aside from reproduction differences women can do what men can.

i myself choose to he the "old-fashioned" kind and stay home with the kids and such but that is a choice and if i wished i would expect my One to support me in my desire to work outside from the home.

In no way though would i give up a sense of myself to be a sub or even to be a feminist. i have my soft sides and my hard sides thats compliment both my submissivness and my feminism.

my One would know that i am not a doormat. i have a say in things that go on in my life and Our lives. i may forgo my feelings if He provides clear reasoning on the point that would sway me but i would insist on being heard. Its a give and take kinda thing.

 

[Roy Kay]

I've been a feminist since way back when it was called "emancipated women". I resisted even nominal spanking for a long time. Then it was pointed out that a lover gives a woman what she wants. She has the right to her own desires. That said, I doubt that I could go the 24/7 route. I like to play, but as play.