S&M before de Sade...the rebel academic speaks

[RisiaSkye]

Okay, I confess: I'm an academic. I realize that this makes me, by definition (for many), duller than a box of Kleenex, so I try not to bring it into the light too often. However, I'm working on a paper on epistolary novels of the 18th century, and the construction of female sexuality in terms of violence within them. And, in the course of my research, I'm discovering a very interesting thing:

Sexual submission, Domination, and violence go way back in our westernized literature. I've read, far too many times, that de Sade and Masoch are basically held accountable for the expression of such tendencies, but I'm realizing more and more that it's a huge myth. Why do we call it Sadism? Well, because of de Sade, of course. Why do we call it Masochism? Well, because of Masoch, of course. Didn't they start it? As it turns out--NO, they didn't.

What, given the assumptions which infuse even the naming (S&M) of what we do, should we make of something like the following?:

"So tell me, my faint-hearted swain, do you really think that all those women you've had were raped? Nevertheless, however keen we are to give ourselves and however quickly we'd like it to happen, we still need some pretext. And can you tell me a more convenient one than seeming to submit to force? Let me be honest: for me one of the most gratifying things is a sharp, well-conducted assault in which everything takes place in the proper order but smartly, so that we're never placed in the tiresome and awkward predicament of having to overlook technical weaknesses which we ought really to have taken advantage of; which retains a semblance of violence even when we've given up the fight, and is skilful enough to satisfy our two favourite passions, a glorious resistance followed by a pleasurable defeat. I agree that such a gift, rarer than most people think, has always afforded me gratification, even when it hasn't made me lose my head, so that at times I've given in purely in recognition of a good performance. Rather like the tournaments of olden days when Beauty awarded the prize for skill and valour."
--letter 10, from the Marquise de Merteuil to the Viscomte de Valmont (emphasis mine); Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Choderlos de Laclos, 1781.

Bear in mind that de Laclos wrote this novel more than a decade before de Sade's most widely read and loudly scorned work, the BDSM epistolary (letters) novel Justine. Other, similarly themed, texts that I'm studying go back at least as far as the turn of the century--before de Sade was even born, in other words.

The Marquise de Merteuil is a figure that a BDSM crowd can readily recognize as a Domme. In the social context of the 18th century, the libertine woman was subject to public scorn at best, so she uses her masochistic tendencies to couch her sexual domination of men in a spider-web of pretended resistance, discouraging her conquests from outing her as a sexual adventurer. Yet, despite this facade, she controls her interactions with all, and ultimately is undone only by her weakness--and a kind of submission--for/to the equally Dom Viscomte de Valmont. Their sexual mastery of others is the fabric of the text, and their dalliances with others are largely readable as an extended power struggle with each other, a struggle to determine who will ultimate be Dom/me in their relationship.

In the end, the two Dominants are undone by falling too deeply in love with their submissives and out of love with each other--but they face different fates. Valmont, classified by the text as a roue (a french term for "rake" or "cad" which also translates as one broken on the wheel by torture), morally "redeems" himself by dying to defend the honor of the masochistic penitent he's made his submissive. Merteuil, on the other hand, is outed as a "fallen woman," loses her money, gets smallpox, becomes hideous, and is forced to flee the country. The broken Dom dies and is revered; the broken Domme is disgraced, disowned, and turned away but does not die. Curiouser and curiouser.

It's also interesting to note that de Laclos (the author) was a military strategist, died a full General, and faced massive public scorn for the text, but he never either denied his connection to it or expressed remorse at having done so. Further, because of the epistolary form, and a bizarre editor's note which attributed Laclos as the editor rather than author, it was read as a completely true story by his contemporaries.

This story continues to be immensely popular today--if you've seen Dangerous Liaisons, Valmont, Cruel Intentions or any number of other works based on it, you already know the story. It's part of our cultural fabric, as much today as ever.

Interesting, yes?
Or am I just doing way too much scholarly crap lately?

 

[yuppietowngirl]

Interesting, yes?
Or am I just doing way too much scholarly crap lately?

Yes RisiaSkye...I find that rather interesting. And there is never "too much scholarly crap"...learning keeps our minds alive. And thank you for sharing this with us.

 

[SpectreT]

Question: Are you sticking to Gallic references, or are you widening the geography of your historical search? Too much French, and probably not far enough back. I suspect this has been with us (humanity) as long as language, I'm just not posessed of the right combination of time and reference material to make a study of it.

Besides, I'm not a professional academic. I'm an armchair philosopher and a very anachronistic warrior. I learned archery and fencing before I was ten (my father was a licensed Bowhunting instructor, and instilled a deep love of the woods and its creatures, and a program at the YMCA in fencing that hooked me), and still love both, though I haven't indulged my fencing in way too long. There's a reason I call myself a Knight in Tarnished Armor.

Makes me feel like I prepared myself for a very different life than what's possible in this modern society. No wonder I'm such a geek

 

[RisiaSkye]

Question: Are you sticking to Gallic references, or are you widening the geography of your historical search? Too much French, and probably not far enough back. I suspect this has been with us (humanity) as long as language, I'm just not posessed of the right combination of time and reference material to make a study of it.

Answer: For the purposes of this paper, I'm sticking largely to France, England & the U.S./colonies. Because I'm doing the reading and a great portion of the writing in French, it's easier for me to not switch languages too often. In the broader scope, though, I'm in American cultural studies, so I'm already working a little outside of my field to fulfill some linguistic requirements for my doctorate. In other words, this is all a sideline.
But, an interesting one.

 

[DRxBlue]

Is there no END?

Every time i think that i can settle in and start digesting what i've absorbed so far, in such a short time, it's dinner time again!

You have definitely served up "beaucoup de morceaux savoureux" here though. i knew you were a teacher, but this sort of analysis still surprises me.

This is by no means "duller than a box of Kleenex", i hope you will test out more of your thoughts on this subject on us. Your latest sig line piqued my interest, now i'm feeling ravenous again.

i'm really happy to see this forum being used for such a worthy cause.

Do tell us more. *rapt attention*

 

[Mr Wolf]

Nice to see someone posting on this subject, if I could add to the debate I believe de Sade was writing before then but not under his name. Simone de Beauvoir attributes a play presented at La Coste in 1772 to him.

Also Chaucer and even Shakespeare could be said to have BDSM overtones. Just thought I might stimulate the conversation.

 

[Z-guy]

......

 

[cellis]

RisiaSkye... I'm with the Dr. here on this one.

The subject matter is stimulating and thought provoking.

And I am a little in awe of you.

Thank you for being one who raises the level of awareness around here...

 

[Never]

Your mythical forefathers are murderers and rapists?
Maybe that's why people are more comfortable with lesbains than sadist.

 

[SpectreT]

Your mythical forefathers are murderers and rapists?
Maybe that's why people are more comfortable with lesbains than sadist.

Not too mythical. My grandmother did a careful family history, and that whole side of my family is decended from Danes who'd settled in Ireland. My father's side of the family are all from Roman ancestry, so I've got world-conquerors and vikings in my roots. No question what they got up to.

 

[Swashbuckler]

What an intriguing historical subject to explore...

RisiaSkye, what a fun little research project you have found or yourself. I must say, that it does intrigue me. I hope you are having fun with it. Far more interesting than a box of kleenex, please share more with us.


Though historically I have not pursued such a line of research, per se. I would have to say, in my uninformed opinion; that Sade and Masoch leave us with thier names on the subject, not because they were the first, but they were the first to lay down the philosophy with a general public taking note.

I would beleive that bdsm has been an undercurrent in humanity from the dawn of time. Afterall, we as higher primates, do have a tendancy for expressing violence to our own speicies. We just have the knack for better toys of violence than other primates which makes us appear superior, on a technological basis.

Furthermore, all human relations have some degree of hierarchy. Someone is chosen to make descisions, and others are chosen to make the surreal into reality. This happens everyday from courts to, boardrooms to battlefields, to the bedroom. People, follow thier tastes to gravitate towards which end they feel the most comfortable with, consciously or unconsciously.

Therefor, I feel that bdsm is a natural undercurrent of the human experience. It undoubtedly, though I have not the research to point it out at this time, could be seen in art and lterature, and even social and political structures developed around the globe.

The defining personas of this undercurrent would be Sade and Masoch. Why? Because of historical timing. (I will stick with Sade for explaination, because I know more about his life and times, forgive me for leaving out Masoch in my explaination.)

Sade was a public figure, in a time where public awareness was peaking. France in the latter eighteenth and early nineteenth century was in chaos. Societies in turmoil tend to be more open venues for new ideas and definations of old ones. A large portion of the populace was literate, which allows more exchange of ideas amongst a populace. The printing press had been around for centuries, allowing news and ideas to be spread to a greater volume of people as well.

With the backdrop of revolutionary and imperieral France, Sade was a figure that would not go away. His noble birth spared him from death and allowed him to write down and structure a philosophy that he enjoyed. He was a true philosopher, living by his philosophy, as opposed to a hypothesizer, who would spill out on paper and then turn away from carrying out the actions he suggested.

Sade was heavily censored, which as we all know only intrigues a public audience for more. As did his constant antics that fueled the tabloids of his time. This fueld his reading and filled the coffers of his publishers. Though Sade made very little from his own pen, and died a pauper.

Thus, Sade seems to be the first widely publicized articulator of our little favorite undercurrent of humanity. Leaving his name to it, because it had been undefined before his lifetime. Humans like to lable things, and Sade was well publiscized, if not well recieved. Thus Sadism.


That is just my two cents worth on such a wonderful topic of discussion. Sorry if I got a little too verbose. But this has realy intrigued the supressed historian/philosopher within me. If anyone can contradict what I have said, please do so. I have not had the time to do the researh I would have liked to into this subject.

Thank You, RisiaSkye, for opening this thread. It is very interesting.

~Swash~

 

[cellis]

Your mythical forefathers are murderers and rapists?
Maybe that's why people are more comfortable with lesbains than sadist.

??? Mythical forefathers???

I wonder... which people are more comfortable with lesbians?

Personally, sadists are at the top of my list... well one particular sadist, that is... and lesbians well they are a close second... and it is even better if the lesbians are masochists...

 

[James Blandings]

I think that when we discuss the historical background of BDSM we need to keep in mind that the whole concept of categories of sexuality is a relatively modern idea. before the 1800s people just didnt name and categorize things the way we do now. So it can get murky when you try to find direct lines of history.
There were cults in ancient Rome that used flagellation to induce visions which they believed were prophecy.We might say OK, that is a form of BDSM, but that is a modern way to look at it. People then did not define themselves in boxes the way we do now.

 

[cymbidia]

R, as always, you’ve offered a topic of incredible depth and richness – and one that is of more than academic interest to most of us here, too. (BTW, my tissues are in an art deco-looking box, pale greens and blues and whites in the form of stylized calla lillies. It’s not boring at all.)

I can’t comment on your subject, R, because i don’t know anything about it. I can be dazzled by your so obvious intelligence – but you already know i love you for your brain so that’s nothing new. However, i can offer this from my own studies: every human culture that has ever arisen has been grounded in unique-to-that-community ways of relating to what is considered ultimate reality. Additionally, each of those cultures has shared a view of how others in their society were to be treated.

At an even more basic level, however, scientists from a number of disciplines agree that there are some fundamentally human characteristics that underlie the diversity of human customs, rationalities, and traditions. These qualities of “shared humanness” connect all the human societies that have ever existed. Physical anthropologists, for example, have shown that facial expressions and body language relating to surprise, joy, anger, fear, sorrow, disgust, sexual intercourse, and mother-infant interaction are universal. So is the simple smile. So are dominance and submission.

Sexual submission and dominance are not new play toys just discovered in the last few hundred years. They’re not new qualities to being human. From our earliest times as hunter-gathers in small bands, before agriculture, before the rise of settled towns, we’ve been a sexually experimental and kinky species. What’s new is our ability to send out thoughts on this out to others. What’s new is our insistence on some tolerance for different kinds of needs. What's new is, as James said, the formalizing of the labels. What’s new is our allowing academics to focus their prodigious intellect on the puzzle of "Where did we come from, we kinky folk, and what was the road like along the way?”

Thank you, R, for being one of those who pushes the limits of our knowledge about ourselves both as humans and as members of human subset known as BDSM’ers.

 

[RisiaSkye]

cellis et al--thanks. Nice to know I'm not starting a conversation that'll end up being with myself--that I'm not driving everyone crazy with boredom, in other words.

Never--I think you raise an interesting side question--are people actually more comfortable with lesbians than with people bent in BDSM kinks? It's a topic worthy of debate, though I have no firm answer to offer, even as a hypothetical stance.

Wolf--I agree that De Sade was writing well before the 1790s, and this has been fairly well established by a number of historians. However, his most influential work came after his incarceration during the purge of the titled in the years of Louis XVI's ouster and the 18th Brumaire. So, his greatest notoriety came late in life.

However, it's also true that BDSM themes extend back far further than I'm currently looking, and I wouldn't intend to imply otherwise. What's interesting to me is that the most popular as well as the most criticized literature of the era is so full of such overtones, although our own nomenclature seeks to place it much later.

Z--There's *definitely* evidence to suggest that "eastern" texts also carry such themes. Going back as far as the 12th century, popular folk tales such as "Red Bonnet" (a Chinese version of Little Red Riding Hood) suggest that submission to the will of parents forms the central rite of passage for young girls, as a path to becoming appropriate wives--and that's just a single example. For the purposes of my current work, however, I'm focused primarily on western European and north American colonial regions. In the context of colonial nation building in the 18th century, the idea of submission to a "higher" order forms a huge part of the concept of "Manifest Destiny." Seeing it in a sexual context which seeks to define human relationships on a sexual level yields some very interesting insight into thing like colonial slave relations, etc. But your point is well taken.

Swash--I came to this project with many of the same assumptions that you express. Essentially, my primary assumption was that de Sade was the best known figure for such things, and that's why the name has gotten attached to him. Interestingly, though, de Laclos was an incredibly public figure--much more so than de Sade ever was. As a general, a life-long member of the Masons, an anti-royalist, a former Jacobin, and a secretary to Louis XVI's cousin (the "Liberator"), he ultimately became a key force in the Napoleonic army. He was, in effect, a member of the "in-crowd" of French politics--while de Sade was a wealthy nobleman, a man whose title was a forgery, and one who spent his most productive literary years in either jail or an insane asylum. As such, he was both a less credible witness, and a significantly less public figure. Also, before Justine, de Sade's work didn't sell particularly well. On the other hand, de Laclos's only work sold out it's first press run in less than two weeks, and went on to sell more copies than all of de Sade's works combined.

Interestingly, de Laclos also argued for the education and political emancipation of women, something that de Sade tended to equivocate about, changing his argument to fit the context of his current work. Whether or not this plays a role in things, I don't venture to guess.

But, while it might seem that de Sade was more famous and was perhaps the first to articulate an explicitly sexual philosophy in an era in which, as James points out, people were first starting to give labels ("sexuality") to sexual behaviors ("sex")--it isn't actually the case. At least as far back as the 11th century, explicitly sexual works of philosophy and even theology were written which articulate the desires (and even how-to s) for sexual submission and Domination; the Kama Sutra, not suppressed until the Victorian era, comes to mind. Even the widely suppressed Songs of Solomon exhibit many of these themes. Given all of that, I find it curious that de Sade comes to be the representative figure.

There's also another dimension to this--the novel form. The epistolary text was the first form of this newly emerging thing called the novel to really catch on with the popular public. Because reading strictly for pleasure was deemed a sin within many of the more restrictive Christian religions, in order for novels to be acceptable, they were supposed to be instructive in some way. For this reason, perhaps, the epistolary form allowed authors to pose the texts as real stories, and educational ones to be read for the spiritual edification of the reader. IF that's the case, what do we make of the fact that--at a time when novels are just starting, and a time when "sexuality" is really just being born--so many of these first popular novels are narrated as the true stories of women's sexual lives? And that those lives are lived so often and so completely in the model of D/s relations of an explicitly sexual nature? And that this was particularly the case among male authors who advocated the education and political emancipation of women?

These are the questions which currently conspire to drive me insane.

Texts in a similar vein, which make very interesting reading.
**Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded by Samuel Richardson, Britain, 1740. This novel shows a young servant girl who refuses to sleep with her "Master" until such time as he marries her and makes her a proper lady. After this time, it turns into an instructional text about the appropriate submission, particularly sexual, of a wife. It was so popular as to inspire a parody which also became popular.
**Clarissa, Richardson, Britian, 1743. The same, but much longer.
**Shamela by Henry Fielding, Britain, 1741. In this version, Pamela doesn't submit, but rather manipulates her "Master" into marrying her, using her sexual power as a way to con her way into a wealthy marriage. Her sexual "submission" acts as the coin of equivalence between them, giving Pamela the power to marry "above her station" by sexually fascinating her boss.
**Moll Flanders by Daniel DeFoe, N.American colonies, 1722. DeFoe's texts, one of the first "American" novels, details the sexual exploits of a former prostitute who's married seven times. The only one of these marriages in which she finds happiness and in which she stays sexually faithful is a marriage of submission to a fellow criminal.
**Justine, or Good Conduct well Chastised by the Marquis de Sade, France, 1791. Probably the single most famous tale of sexual slavery, and most often mentioned BDSM themed text of the era. Justine, who aspires to be a "lady," is instead educated in the arts of torture and sexual prolongation--particularly as it applies to women receiving the punishment of men.
**Julie, or la Nouvelle Heloise by Jean Jacques Rousseau, France, 1761.
**Juliette, ou le prosperite du vice [the wages (or success) of sin] by the Marquis de Sade, France, 1797. Juliette is often read as a direct response to Rousseau's Julie, much as Justine is often read as a response to Pamela.

 

[Swashbuckler]

RisaSkye, thanks for sharing your bibliography

Thanks again for posting this thread and giving us all the oppertunity to discuss this issue. The bibliography is wonderful, I now know what I need to read this summer while I am on the road. *grin*

Obviously, you have done far more research into this than I have. My assumptions were based on what I knew of history of the French Revolution. I wonder if Sade's name rose to the title if it was because of his being imprisoned for his tastes as opposed to leading a prosperous life?

Thanks

~Swash~

 

[Mr Wolf]

Risia, Some great works there, might I also suggest The 120 days of Sodom by the Marquis de Sade. It is I believe one of his more explict works and explores the depths of a libertine's, or should I say a group or Libertines, desires and perversions in all there naked glory so to speak.
I do so enjoy this thread as it is a pet hobby of mine also. Hence Chaucer and Shakespeare in my first post.

 

[HotXBunz]

Great thread. I am learning sooo much. RysiaSkye, thanks for sharing.

 

[petrel]

Re: Re: S&M before de Sade...the rebel academic speaks

I remeber seeing a reference to what I would consider BDSM play within some old mythology stuff I used to read. Now I did go through a phase of trying to read the most original versions I could lay my hands on - not the kiddies watered down versions so I am assuming it was part of the original myth. I can't remember the particular one though
- nope the only thing I can come up with is Dido, which at least places it in a rough context geographically and historically.
Good luck Risia

 

[RisiaSkye]

Wolf & petrel--I've read all of Sade's work, at least all that's readily available, and most of the major work on it as well. Actually, my adviser on this project is M.Henaff, who wrote a very interesting book on Sade that you might find of interest as well.

The reason for the narrow confines of my current work is that it's a project on 18th century Epistolary novels and the immediate responses to them. Thus, many BDSM related texts aren't relevant to my current project. However, I do appreciate the ideas, and I'll likely follow up on them at a later date.

HotX--I'm glad you're interested. I was afraid I would be talking to myself, something I do quite enough already. But in the future, if you do not spell my name right, I will be forced to tickle you into submission.

*hugs* to all

 

[Mr Wolf]

Risia, would be interested in M. Henaff's book that you mentioned. As I stated it is a pet hobby of mine and I do enjoy reading this type of Literature when I can find the time.

 

[Never]

Interesting how the people who replied to me all sidestepped the point of my post.

RisiaSkye:
“Never--I think you raise an interesting side question--are people actually more comfortable with lesbians than with people bent in BDSM kinks? It's a topic worthy of debate, though I have no firm answer to offer, even as a hypothetical stance.”

‘People’ – that large mass of humanity we are culturally connected to – are more comfortable with lesbians than they are with sadists. Are comedies staring sadists that I don’t know about? My campus has clubs for gays, women, blacks, Hispanics, followers of Islam, and Indians. If I suggested a BDSM club they’d kick me out of the student center.

cellis:
”??? Mythical forefathers???”

Sade isn’t exactly Stein, is he?

 

[A Desert Rose]

Should we thank the fellas?

Interesting how the people who replied to me all sidestepped the point of my post.

RisiaSkye:
“Never--I think you raise an interesting side question--are people actually more comfortable with lesbians than with people bent in BDSM kinks? It's a topic worthy of debate, though I have no firm answer to offer, even as a hypothetical stance.”

‘People’ – that large mass of humanity we are culturally connected to – are more comfortable with lesbians than they are with sadists. Are comedies staring sadists that I don’t know about? My campus has clubs for gays, women, blacks, Hispanics, followers of Islam, and Indians. If I suggested a BDSM club they’d kick me out of the student center.

cellis:
”??? Mythical forefathers???”

Sade isn’t exactly Stein, is he?

Well, I could not sleep and saw this. Now I am wide awake. Thank you for bringing this post back up to see daylight. It is extremely interesting.

In my opinion, I think that society is more comfortable with lesbianism than with S&M. But before I go any further with this I want to preface it by saying that in no way am I bashing men or screaming the liberated woman schpeal. And while I am disclaiming might I add, that the only angle I can speak from is my own, that being an American.

Most of us live in patriarchal societies and that being said, much of the culture is and has been shaped by men: writing, art, cinema, etc. The male view of females is, for the most part, nurturing, sensitive, caring, gentle and genteel, etc. We are after all, their mothers or the mothers of their children. Affection between women is most definately accepted by all of society.

However, society and men in particular, have easily taken this a step further into the realm of sexuality and exposed it to light through cinema, art, media, etc. I believe that because lesbianism is facsinating to men and because, for the most part men have done the most to shape our culture and because of the vision men have of women, lesbianism has become much more acceptable to the general population.

I do think that by and large, women are extremely accepting of human kinds' differences, maybe more so than men are. But in the context of society as a whole, men have been the major shapers of culture in terms of what society sees and then embraces as acceptable.

Or, I could be all wrong........ ~smiling~

This is just an opinion piece, MINE.

 

[Pure]

Interesting material, RS. Keep it coming.

I seem to remember a book with a title like "Forbidden Books of the French Revolution" or something like that. The author was a historian looking at records of books sales, and for which books.
Needless to say, many were porn, not labelled that way.

He translated one, in the back of his book, one mentioned and commended by De Sade. I think "Therese" perhaps. It wasn't so much bdsm as scandal, priest seducing virgin sort of thing.

We know Sade didn't invent the genre, though as he says, he wanted to write the wickedest and filthiest books he could imagine; which would corrupt any that came upon them. Perhaps his level of violence, e.g., in Juliette, is new, though again, if one looked back to Roman emperors and others, sport killing, including for sex, goes back a while.

There is of course a whole 'libertine' genre, of which Laclos is a will known example. The movie Valmont, as you mentioned, is excellent. What may be new in these 'libertine' writings is the glorification of breaking the rules, both sexual and non-. e.g. betraying, lying, etc. Again, though, it's known that certain gnostics in the west and some others in Asia preached a doctrine that one has to do everything possible; if not this time, then the next, in incarnation. I.e. at some point, murder someone; fuck one's mom, etc. Challenging agenda, wouldn't you say?

Very interesting material you are into; keep us posted.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Your mythical forefathers are murderers and rapists?
Maybe that's why people are more comfortable with lesbains than sadist.

Well, that's just it: the mythical forefathers were *accused* of being murderers and rapists. And, as anyone who watches contemporary court cases can tell you, once accused of such crimes, the reputation sticks no matter what the final verdict.

There are a few things at work here:

First, Sade & Masoch are just that--mythical forefathers. They are not actually the point of origination, just the figureheads.

Second, their reputations were destroyed for political reasons as much as legal and moral ones. So, while Jefferson has been fairly well substantiated as a rapist (fucking a slave--and therefor one not capable of giving legally binding consent), he's one of the "good guys;" while de Sade was never once accused of rape by anyone he actually fucked, he's a rapist and one of the "bad guys." This has more to do with who gets to write "history" than it does with facts.

Third, the cultural acceptance of lesbian sex doesn't seem to have much to do with the history of lesbianism--it's not as though it's inherently less passionate, potentially violent, or culturally destabilizing to hetero-normativity. Certainly the writings of Sappho, the mythology of the Diana & Athena cults & Amazonian lore are just as outside-the-mainstream as deSade & Masoch's. They are also often violent. They also contest, strongly, the male domination of public power. None of those things make people real comfy, by and large.

Fourth, the contemporary cultural embrace of lesbianism isn't really about lesbians, is it? Isn't it more about the performance of lesbian sexuality for the consumption of a hetero-male audience? Isn't that acceptance pretty much predicated on the fantasy that all that's missing is the spectator--who imagines him/herself right in there, eagerly accepted by the women? Isn't that "acceptance" largely a spectacular one--a voyeuristic gaze that empowers the watcher more than the participant?

And, finally: BDSM (especially the S & M components) really challenge our understanding of victimhood, empowerment, and consent. I think those are the elements that make people most uncomfortable. While many people are still busily trying to figure out what "creates" homosexuality, others simply accept it without explanation as part of life's fabric. I think that the violence of BDSM sets it up as a "problem" for an even wider audience--as something to be solved, fixed, and eradicated, even more so than homosexuality. Goofy, but there it is: lesbianism looks like love to more people than S & M does. Many people seem to have a hard time reconciling violence with love--including many people who say "it doesn't matter who you love, only *that* you love."

Of course, that's just my opinion, off-the-cuff.