27 Apr 09, 10:51 PM
bastinadolover
UK, 3 yrs
 |
There are those in the feminist movement who without hesitation would say that a healthy M/s and D/s relationship and feminism is incompatible.
However, it is my view that this negative view depends very much on which bits of feminism you're talking about. Feminism, in my opinion, has many strands of thought which sometimes do not gel consistently with each other.
In the 'eighties, one group of feminists put a lot of energy into criticising relationships based on M/s and D/s. It was said that such relationships were based on patriarchal socialization, copied from oppressive situations and not essentially any different from the real-life situations it sometimes resembled. If you found it sexy, that was a form of internalised oppression or "false consciousness". If you not only found it sexy, but actually thought there might be some value in it, you were undermining feminism (or at least their version of it) and propping up the patriarchy.
However, having studied the psychology of feminism at University, I believe that an M/s and D/s relationship based culture can be a valuable resource for some questions important in feminist politics.
The nature of consent is one example. Even now in the 21st Century we still need a campaign just to establish that "No means no". But beyond that simple level, there are important questions that our M/s and D/s culture is still working on. When is consent not genuine because the person giving it was disempowered and not free to choose? When, even though consent was given, ought one not to proceed because the person giving it was not sufficiently wise about their own well-being? Those questions aren't limited to M/s and D/s, but clearly this is an area of enquiry important to both the vanilla and our culture.
Meanwhile, in the vanilla world, there is a pervasive cultural mystification on the issue of consent which is an essential part of a male-privileging sex set-up. "But I thought she wanted it" is the ultimate get-out clause, and it only works when the nature of consent is continually confused and blurred.
One of the main feminist anti-M/s and D/s arguments is the idea that people are unable ever to give valid consent to it, for one or other of the above reasons. Interestingly, one strand of feminist thought (of which Andrea Dworkin is probably the best-known exponent) sometimes represents all male/female penetrative sex in the same way. Women are not capable of consenting to it - they've been culturally programmed to want it, so therefore their consent is not of their own free will. Therefore if one follows Andrea Dworkin's thinking then it could be suggested that if lesbians want penetrative sex, it must be as a result of incompletely escaping heterosexual programming. ( I can only assume that the likes of Andrea Dworkin believe that they've escaped their own "cultural programming" enough to be an authority on the subject.)
Pronouncements from the likes of Andrea Dworkin on what's "allowable" in sexuality, I would argue have their own pitfalls. They may deny or confuse women's own instincts about what's right for them, which varies from woman to woman and from moment to moment. It's not only in the practice of M/s and D/s that women need to ask "How do I know what to choose that's healthy for me?". And it's precisely when their instincts are dulled and confused that women become most vulnerable to abuse - of all kinds, not only physical.
I would argue that women who enter in M/s and D/s relationship are much more gifted at listening to their own intuition, their inner voice; have greater emotional strength to ask relevant questions; are more curious; see what needs to be seen; hear what needs to be heard; and possess the independence to act upon what know to be true. Surely this is how women get empowered, not by following someone else's rules, however well-meant. Therefore, I would argue that women who are into M/s and D/s relationships should be looked upon as positive examples of feminism rather than looked down by the likes of Andrea Dworkin.
One particular accusation which has been levelled at women who enter into a M/s or D/s is that it's "disrespectful" to genuine abuse survivors to play with pain and submission. Based on what I learned at University and am still learning I wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. The disrespect lies in confusing the two situations. In one case, two people are jointly engaged in an exploration for the joy and fulfilment of both of them; in the other, one person is intent on their own gratification with, at best, no regard for the well-being of the other, at worst an intention to harm. The actions may be similar, but the underlying reality is completely different. To deny the importance of that underlying difference is to discount people's own reality. It's equivalent to saying to a rape survivor that because some people enjoy penetrative sex some of the time, they "must have wanted it" - as if different people never wanted different things, or as if people never wanted different things at different times. That confusion is not only outrageously disrespectful, but dangerous in that it denies the importance of consent.
Something else with which feminists are concerned is equality in relationships. Criticising the play-inequalities of S/m and D/s does nothing to address genuine power imbalances created by money, education or physical strength, or based on race, class, body size, gender, abilities and so on. In a way, S/m and D/s is a peculiarly equalizing phenomenon, in that the roles someone plays need not bear any relationship to the economic, physical or intellectual power they may hold in the rest of their life, but only to their own (and their partner's) pursuit of pleasure.
Equality of sexual pleasure itself is a vital subject within feminist discussion, with many feminists stating that in the vanilla world one person's pleasure is always at another person's expense . Women who are part of an S/m or D/s relationship, I would argue prove this assertion to be an fallacy. Surely S/m and D/s relationships only succeed when there is an equality of sexual pleasure between both the slave/sub and Master/Dom.
To whatever degree S/m and D/s relationships provide a space for women to claim their own power and become comfortable with it, to value their own pleasure and that of their partners, I would argue that S/m and D/s relationships are a profoundly empowered feminist choice for women !!
|
The two are most certainly compatible.
