Portrayal of BDSM in The Media

[Harbinger]

I recently rented a video (One Night at McCool's) where there was a small scene that depicted some quasi Hollywood style BDSM. Now, this is supposed to be a comedy, and I'm not going to rant about accuracy or fairness. But something about it made me wonder. The scene I'm referring to had a male power-lawyer type being disciplined by a young female. My feeling is, if one had to generalize, that you generally see more male Dom's and more female subs than the reverse. This is rather commonplace in the BDSM community. However it seems to me that the media feels very uncomfortable with these roles. It seems acceptable, when portraying BDSM, to do it in a comical context, and only then when the male is in the role of sub. I couldn't think of an exception. I wondered why this cliche is acceptable to mainstream society, when the reversed roles are apparently not.

 

[Kitte]

I agree with you in that most of the 'media' portrayals of BDSM are in the context of male sub. and comical at that.
To make a an uneducated guess at best. I would say it is in response to the fact that if it was reversed many people would see it as degrading to women. Whereas the reverse is seen as a farcical switch on the ongoing gender 'war'. It is showing a woman in a supposed position of power.

 

[monster666]

Hollywood BDSM seems almost always farcical. The get ups, the kink and the gags are almost always the same.

I was thinking about the same sort of things when I started this thread:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=95818

 

[cellis]

Because mainstream society, does not understand the concepts of alternative sexual activities, it is easier to accept the idea of a Femdomme and a sub male.

Society definitely has a difficult time accepting the fact that some women want to have their ass beat... that it is in fact pleasureable and not in the least abusive.

 

[petrel]

very long post - sorry

Why don't we see other forms of BDSM relationships in mainstream Media???

Because it is easier to portray a male sub/Femme Domme as a strange perverted fantasy that has little to do with pleasure or actual sex. After all men only get into this because they have been emasculated by feminism, or because they (poor souls) have to carry such a burden of trying to be strong all the time and therefore they need an outlet for all those suppressed emotions - or they are just plain screwed up and being taken advantage of by female bitches again: take your pick - all the clichés are about power and the post feminist era not about Sex.

If they tried to portray a BDSM scene with a Female Sub and a Male Dom they would actually have to start looking outside the clichés. After all they can't portray women as weak for accepting a sub role otherwise there would be a national outcry; they can't say that women feel emasculated nor can they openly portray a man 'taking the power' in such an obvious way within a relationship. They would have to say - this is a healthy relationship between 2 consenting adults - and its about sexual pleasure - and they are not willing to give that validity to BDSM as a sexual practise.

By keeping all portrayals of BDSM out of the sexual arena and in the political/emotional/mental arena (in a negative way) they deny us the right to make a valid choice about our sexuality.
They foster the myth that BDSM is something unnatural - many people 'still' see a 'normal' relationship as being Male - Alpha and Female - Beta. If we showed a hetro couple engaged in BDSM (fem sub / Male Dom) we would be showing that "people like us do this"

Also I'll bet few of us have ever seen any form of BDSM in movies within a long-term, stable or committed relationship - oh no BDSM practises are carried out in the dark, after hours, in sleazy clubs and motel rooms. They involve lying to your partners, cheating on your wife:
Even films like preaching to the perverted to a greater extent condone this attitude. The main characters in this film are a Female Domme and a male sub, very few scenes (if many) take place in 'everyday life' thus continuing with the assumption that BDSM is something participated in only by a small sector of society that has already passed far outside the pale of 'normality'

I could go on but I think my basic point is clear; this is not a simple matter of Hollywood feeling uncomfortable with certain concepts it is a definite policy not to give BDSM relationships that validity that even Gay relationships are now beginning to be granted.

Maybe the fight will take as long as the fight for gay rights has done (and that one is still ongoing) but maybe in ten or twenty-year time we will have a brave mainstream provider showing a BDSM relationship as 'normal' and healthy. Or maybe we will never see it and BDSM will remain something whispered about behind closed doors, I (unhappily) incline towards the latter - they only show Gay relationships because they can portray it as two people who love each other - the facts of Gay sex remain (for the main) well hidden. This luxury is not available if portraying or discussing BDSM the core of the relationship and lifestyle is sexual, you cannot explain BDSM without explaining the sexual impact of it. I could say to my five yr old nephew oh J&P are Gay - that means they love each other and want to live together - there is nothing wrong with that. But I'm not sure I could say to him oh A&T want to hit each other with whips and tie each other up and that is called BDSM'
Please note I'm not proposing we do say things like this to kids - I am just making the point that we have a much harder struggle in front of us.

(and my definition of normal encompasses all of us here - people with lives, jobs, shirts that need ironing, chaotic morning getting ready for the school bus, kids, pets, houses fun and laughter)

 

[WillowPuss]

Wow!
Good post petrel.

Errrr ... what she said.


It would just make audiences far too uncomfortable to show a Dom/femsub relationship.
It would make them think, and films that make the audience think do not make much money.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I wondered why this cliche is acceptable to mainstream society, when the reversed roles are apparently not.

Hollywood loves any cliche. This is just one of many. When have you ever seen any group of people treated fairly in the media?

I believe that using a cliche is easy, and does not involve thinking about the subject you are misrepresenting. It sells newspapers, magazines and tickets to movies. It increases TV ratings. And it panders to the need of humans to feel superior to other humans.

Most uninformed people believe that the Dom/femsub relationship is an abusive one. But the FemDOm/malesub relationship is retribution. Those ignorant views are easy, and popular. A sure money maker.

Ebony

 

[MzChrista]

Re: Re: Portrayal of BDSM in The Media

Hollywood loves any cliche. This is just one of many. When have you ever seen any group of people treated fairly in the media?

I believe that using a cliche is easy, and does not involve thinking about the subject you are misrepresenting. It sells newspapers, magazines and tickets to movies. It increases TV ratings. And it panders to the need of humans to feel superior to other humans.

Most uninformed people believe that the Dom/femsub relationship is an abusive one. But the FemDOm/malesub relationship is retribution. Those ignorant views are easy, and popular. A sure money maker.

Ebony

Yep.
Damn, I dont need to write much here, just put a yep after whatever Ebony says for me. OK?

 

[MzChrista]

Oh, and the rest of yous have got it going on too, dont take me wrong. If I did that kissyface stuff, Id give you all some.

 

[WriterDom]

It's not surprising when groups like NOW have taken positions against bdsm. But I think that's starting to soften.

 

[Ebonyfire]

Yep

It's not surprising when groups like NOW have taken positions against bdsm. But I think that's starting to soften.

It is that old story: ignore, ignore, overreact.

It never ceases to amaze me the attention people pay to other people's bedrooms, without scrutinizing their own.

Ebony

 

[Rifferus]

Time to weigh in with my 2 cents

Basically, petrel hit the nail squarely on the head. In the post-feminist (Are we really PAST feminism yet?..LOL) culture we have, ANY depiction of a woman in a subserviant role is immediately deemed wrong. DOesn't matter if she desires this subserviance, doesn't matter if the subserviance itself is something of a missnomer, if you depict it, it's bad bad bad. If she accepts or desires the state of submission, the immediate reaction is that she's been brainwashed, either by the patriarchal system that teaches women they are meant to be subserviant to men (BAD in most feminist doctrine I've come across) or she's been so abused in her life that she doesn't know any better. There are a variety of themes that show up in these categories. We as a culture (North American) generally don't publicly acknowledge sexuality at all, beyond the adolescent levels of animal lust seen in any number of teen films. We are far more comfortable with scenes depicting grotesque violence and mayhem than we are of scenes exploring human nature, sexuality and love. Hollywood is going to reflect this due to the fact that a) They need to sell tickets, and showing people things they aren't ready to see yet has never proven to be a good sales technique, a b) The people making the decisions about these things are generally no more aware of their own sexuality than most people, far less things beyond. Ignorance perperuates itself so elegantly, it's a wonder we ever coagulated from primordial ooze to begin with, LOL

Anyways, just felt like sounding off, as societal attitudes towards sex and power are constant pebbles in my shoes. Take care, all, and play safe..

 

[Never]

Since when is this the post-feminist era?

In regards to your post though, anytime we see a member of a once disenfranchised group kneeling, chained, or being beaten people are going to get their hackles up. The issue feminists have always had with pornography is that the majority of it does not reflect the woman's desire at all. I can pick up the Beauty trilogy at any Waldenbooks or Barnes and Noble – if feminist groups were deeply offended by that particular title I don't think it would be on the shelves.

Ebonyfire:
" It never ceases to amaze me the attention people pay to other people's bedrooms, without scrutinizing their own."
I'm not following you there. Feminists have been scrutinizing what happens in their bedrooms for decades not.

 

[Rifferus]

Beuaty trilogy

To be fair, many feminist groups DID oppose the carrying of the Beauty trilogy by major book chains. Anne Rice herself documents her struggles to keep the book on shelves in quite a few interviews.

And as far as pornography goes, I think the general thread here concerns mainstream media representation, but since you bring it up, I would liken the majority of it to the adolescent lust-type teen movies. Pretty unsophisticated, and certainly not an exploration of actual sexuality. Business as usual, tho there are good ones to be found here and there that seem to focus more on sexual interaction than simply the "zeal of the organs for one another" as Joseph Campbell might describe it. Few and far between, but often worth the search.