Playing With Power or Playing With Fire?

by Janis Cortese

BDSM: a cyclical acronym standing for "bondage & discipline/dominance & submission/sadism & masochism," involving role-playing and negotiation in sexual situations. Often confused with perpetuating sexist stereotypes.

Despite the current attacks on the legitimacy and morality of homosexuality, the gains made by the gay/lesbian/bisexual population are numerous. Once referred to as a bona-fide mental illness requiring mental treatment by the psychiatric profession, it has now been accepted as part and parcel of what can be a very healthy, self-actualized life. Much research, no matter your opinion on it, has been done that indicates that one's preference for a given gender may indeed be hardwired into a person's personality. Certainly, given that many gays, lesbians, and bisexuals often fight for years not to admit their nature and fail, it appears to be that way. Most can name specific instances of fantasy or orientation that hinted at their adult sexuality starting in young childhood -- a feeling of not belonging, interest in the same sex, or mystification at the way that heterosexuality seemed to be accepted as unquestionable.

It can seem odd and even outrageous for the inclination towards BDSM games in sex to be approached the same way, given how often they are misunderstood as cruel and vicious, not connected to love and mutuality at all. What I'd like to do here is outline just what BDSM is, what it involves, and try to explain just how incorrect this perception is. I'm not advocating it for anyone, and given that it appears to be similar to homosexuality in that you've either got the itch for it or you don't, advocacy wouldn't do anything. What I'd like to do is educate you about something that you've probably heard a lot about -- a lot of myths, malicious rumors, and inaccurate information.

Peppered throughout this will be hypothetical examples or definitions within which I have sometimes referred to the dominant partner as "she" and the submissive as "he." This isn't set in stone -- either pronoun can be used.

BDSM and Sexism -- What's Going On?

I t's a common feminist belief that BDSM perpetuates sexism, and it's something that needs to be addressed. This incorrect belief revolves around a confusion between what the popular image of BDSM is. The most common picture in most people's minds of BDSM sex is that of the submissive woman tied up and brutalized by a man -- but it's important to realize that this isn't any more an accurate or complete picture of BDSM sexuality than the common image of vanilla sex as a submissive woman being used by a man either.

It's important to realize that the culture at large is silly and inaccurate about vanilla sex, so there is no reason to suspect that the most common images of BDSM that are propagated (lack of consent, no safety, and always a submissive woman with a dominant man) are any more accurate a portrayal. Many people dislike gay sex because they dislike the idea of pedophilia and cruelty. However, gay sex is not composed of those things, and so whereas the straight community feels that it must take a stand against gay sex, what it really is taking a stand against is a cartoon stereotype of gay sex that doesn't have a thing to do with what gay sex is really about. And the end result is that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are discriminated against for something they do not even do.

Keep in mind that many people who are not informed about feminism also dislike feminism because "they don't want to hate men." We feminists respond with, "But that's not what we're all about!"

No more than cruelty or sexism is what BDSM is all about.

So What Is It All About?

O kay, so it's not cruelty. What is it? What do people do? What's the attraction? Is this a permanent part of a person's personality, or is it a "choice?" Read on for more information.

An orientation

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that BDSM may well be as much of a natural orientation as homosexuality. There isn't very much research to support this, though -- mostly because while homosexuality has achieved more legitimacy recently, BDSM hasn't. Hence, people are much more likely to react with disgust and immediate condemnation instead of interest. Research is more likely to revolve around how BDSM would influence social pathology or mental illness -- much the way that homosexuality was once regarded.

But, just as many people who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual had feelings and sensibilities that hinted at that orientation from childhood, many people who are involved in BDSM also had fantasies and interests in this direction from childood, without realizing what it was. Interest in control, interest in physical restraint, or interest in role-playing are among the fantasies that many practitioners of BDSM have had beginning with our childhood years, long before any awareness of sexuality from an adult perspective.

Role-Playing and Impermanence of Roles

To return for a moment to the question of BDSM and sexism, one of the most common misconceptions among non-participants of what BDSM is about revolves around the belief that the dominant partner is always and only a man, cruel and nasty, and the submissive partner is always and only a woman -- powerless and servile. While some dominants are men and some submissives are women, that is by no means a given, or even typical. Indeed, BDSM is very often the other way around -- many dominant participants are women, and many submissives men. Each participant has their own opinion of why this is so, of course, but the general consensus seems to be that men, with their constant pressures to never show weakness and always be completely in control, enjoy the opportunity to hand the reins to someone else for a while. Women, on the other hand, denied any opportunity to express our tendencies towards control and dominance, enjoy letting that side out with a trusted partner, where we feel safe in doing so.

And the most important thing to remember in all of this is that, among BDSM participants, one must never make the assumption that a man is dominant and a woman submissive. Non-participants often make that assumption, but no one who practices BDSM would ever do so. Neither can you assume that a man will be submissive and a woman dominant. The most important thing about BDSM, and the best thing for those who participate in it, is the realization that the sex roles that people play are just that -- roles, and are not set in stone, and have nothing to do with your race, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity, or even physical capacity. Many strapping 6' tall men who would intimidate you were you to see them in a dark alley are actually quite submissive. Many women under 5' tall are raging doms.

BDSM participants understand, perhaps better than anyone since we must confront this fact head-on, that the role you wish to play in sex, and in life itself, has nothing to do with your gender, your sexuality, the color of your skin, the country of origin of your grandparents, or the name of the place of worship you go to once a week, if indeed you go anywhere. And this is purely because of the concept of open discussion and negotiation. (Would that vanilla sex also had the advantage of not making assumptions about another's wishes, or required open discussion of every act performed before it was done.)

Indeed, it is only people who are not experienced in BDSM who have ever made sexist assumptions about me (personal anecdote warning!). When the topic comes up, in a vague sort of way at some parties with friends, as it sometimes does, that I lean in that direction, it is uniformly the BDSM non-participants who automatically make assumptions about who I am and what I want. Men will begin to treat me like a toy, of course thinking that I am not only submissive, but that I will submit to any man who asks. (This is much the same as the straight person's assumption that a lesbian will be aroused by any woman, and a gay man by any man.) Women will also assume that I am submissive and castigate me for undoing feminism.

If the truth is hinted at (that I am in fact quite dominant), the men often become openly hostile while at the same time fascinated and repulsed. Otherwise, they will act as if I will dominate any man who asks. (They seem to misunderstand the fundamental nature of a dominant woman, which is that I will do what I want to do, and if I'm not attracted to you, it ain't gonna happen.) and the women feel the need to tell me that while they don't like BDSM, that my sexuality is "okay."

In other words -- assumptions and misunderstandings based on ignorance that lead to hostility as well as assumptions that, as members of the majority, they are empowered to give "approval" to anything out of the ordinary -- pretty much the same old story.

On the other hand, when I am discussing my sexuality with other BDSM participants, the mere concept of:

making any assumptions about my preferences, or
treating me like a wind-up doll

either do not occur or occur with no more frequency than in the world of vanilla sex. As I stated before, BDSM participants know all too well that assumptions about one's sexuality based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc. are almost always dead wrong.

Of course, this is also the case in non-BDSM sex, but since that is often promoted as the norm, and desireable, there are very few practitioners who ever think about these issues in quite this amount of detail and attention.

Women, BDSM, and Society

Parts of this section will perforce be secondhand, because I cannot personally speak to the situation of a submissive woman. However, I have known a number of women who are, and it's clear to me that there are a number of issues at work for both dominant and submissive women that can make things difficult for them, as well as making things confusing for others.

It's important to realize that dominance and submission are like two more-or-less non-overlapping areas, just as male and female are. (Although in both, there are certainly grey areas and some places of overlap.) There can be combinations of any of the above, as a result:

Dominant and female
Dominant and male
Submissive and female
Submissive and male

Culture at large has determined that 2 and 3 are the ideal pair and that anything else is "weird" and "strange," while at the same time nursing a massive prurient fascination with the 1 and 4 combination. There are problems associated with both sides, and again since this is a site aimed at women, I will without apology focus on us.

The dominant woman often faces the problem of being the secret hot fantasy of a large number of men -- when the lights are out. When the lights come up, though, she is expected to walk two steps behind him at parties, defer to him at company dinners, and laugh at his jokes while making none of her own at social functions. In other words, the prurient interest of society is such that she is greatly pursued -- as long as no one knows about it. It's much the same as what James Baldwin spoke of when he discussed life as a gay minority member (a gay black man). In Lynne Segal's "Straight Sex," she says that Baldwin "knew that it was the same white boys who chased him and mocked him most fiercely in the streets in his youth, who frightened him even more if they found him when they were alone; then 'they spoke very gently and wanted me to take them home and make love.'"

If the dominant woman is straight, her lover will adore her in the bedroom, but freak out if any of his buddies find out about her. Her sexuality is turned into a dirty shameful secret. She is sought after in bed, but reviled when the lights come up. A man will want her when no one else is watching, but ignore or condemn her when anyone else is. To say that this hypocrisy is insulting and maddening is an understatement. And it can be very difficult to find a man who is willing to treat her sexuality as anything other than a dirty little secret that he'd die if it got out. Sometimes living in a closet can be sadly necessary -- but being shoved there by someone who then expects to share that same sexuality with you is more than a tad bit annoying.

It also illuminates the current au fait opinion among so-called "pro-sex feminists" that all of the sexual landscape of western culture is set up for the delectation and advantage of the dominant woman -- a lie that is spurious at its heart, just as it would be to say that the sexual landscape of the nation is set up for the advantage of the gay black man because the same white boys who threatened Baldwin's life in public wanted him to fuck them in private.

I once visited Las Vegas. Every single taxicab and billboard I saw had some half naked woman in a nice and submissive, pliant pose for the delectation of the presumed male viewer. If the sexual landscape is so fabulous for the dominant woman, where are all the pretty young long haired 20-year-old boys hiding? Oh, that's right -- there aren't any (unless you're talking about gay male escort services, which one can probably find without much trouble in LV, although I didn't find out). Why do the "pro-sex feminists" think then, in the face of a complete absence of pliant-looking pretty young femme men in entertainment and the world at large, that the sexual world favors the dominant woman? Because most of the johns in Vegas want the hooker to beat them up.

Huzzah. We're supposed to feel empowered by becoming a new mass consumption item. The problem is -- dominant women aren't empowered by being consumed. We're empowered by consuming, and until just as many taxicabs are covered with pictures of pliant, pretty young decorated men, I will remain skeptical of claims that the world is designed to the advantage of the straight or bisexual dominant woman. Being bought and paid for is not empowering to the woman with the dominant mindset. We are empowered by buying and paying, metaphorically speaking. And the constant reminders from feminists like Susie Bright that "lots of other women like it that way!!!" means as much to us as telling a gay couple that "lots of other people" like heterosexuality, too, so they should stop complaining when gays only appear in 3% of all media images, and mostly as bad jokes and mentally unstable criminals.

However, the submissive woman also faces problems. It can be extremely difficult for a woman who is ambitious in her career and personal life to reconcile this with her desire to "hand over the reins" during sex. Such women are blamed for undoing feminism, having lingering self-hate, or just plain being wimps when the truth is simply that they happen to live in that overlap area between female and submissive. I will admit myself that the concept of female submissiveness bothers me -- but it's not the woman who bothers me. It's the arbitrary way that others who aren't even knowledgeable about BDSM have stated that she is the ideal. And that isn't her fault.

And despite being arbitrarily and without her consent defined as the ideal woman, it can also be very difficult for a submissive woman to find a man who understands that this is a natural choice for her -- not something that she will toddle up and do mindlessly to any man who asks, not something that proves that women are naturally weak and inferior, and not his sexual birthright that he has every right to expect. Since the submissive woman has been defined as the ideal, it can also be difficult for a man to deal with the fact that "submissive" does not mean "will do absolutely anything any man asks her to do no matter how vile, and moreover won't complain when I blow $5000 on a new DVD player when she wanted to get a new sound card for her computer." Not by a long shot.

The dominant woman is defining something that has not been accepted as existing legitimately. The submissive woman is redefining something that has been distorted. Both have their issues.

Safety, Consent, and Negotiation

In the previous section, I used the term negotiation, and this is a central concept in BDSM sexuality -- the open and frank discussion of what each partner wants to get out of a given session, along with an open and frank discussion of what things are off-limits, what things might be interesting, what things might be intimidating, or any other concerns that might come up.

Another central concept is that of a safeword, a word that can be spoken by either party to give "the red light" to the proceedings and that will bring the entire session to a halt should one or the other member decide that they do not wish to continue.

And wrapped up in both of these ideas is the even more fundamental one of consent. Unfortunately, many of these concepts are not discussed in terms of vanilla sex. Because that is seen as more "normal," it is often assumed by the participants that these things do not need to be discussed because "nature will take its course," or what have you. If a woman wishes in vanilla sex to discuss in detail what it is she wants, what bothers her, and where her psychological weak points may be, it is treated as if it is some grand confessional -- and something that quite often the man simply doesn't know how to react to. The only time that a depth of discussion and negotiation anything near that found in BDSM is deemed acceptable or "unavoidable" in vanilla sex is if one or both of the partners is a survivor of some form of abuse. This means that negotiation and discussion, which could put anyone at ease no matter their history, is only deemed a "last resort" and only then in cases of extreme pathology.

Otherwise, it is considered something frightening and scary, and something to be done only in the gravest extreme, when in reality it could put a great many psychologically "normal" people at their ease.

I think I'm not stating anything mysterious when I say that this is not a terribly productive attitude, and that vanilla sex at large would only be improved if its practitioners were to discuss things in as much detail as practitioners of BDSM do. Assuming that you, the reader, are a vanilla practitioner, how often have you felt nervous or unprepared for something that happened in bed with your partner, and yet felt as if you didn't have a sufficient "excuse" for discussing it? How often have you felt unwittingly pushed into something you didn't want to do because you didn't know how to bring it up? Wouldn't it be nice if it were deemed normal and desirable to discuss your preferences beforehand, even if you were engaging in garden variety, "normal" sex?

This negotiation and discussion process is considered absolutely essential in BDSM sex. Because practitioners recognize that they are doing important things that will matter a great deal to people, psychologically speaking, they recognize how important it is to lay all cards out on the table.

Of course, it is equally important for vanilla sex as well -- which can also hurt and damage people if it is not accompanied by honest communication.

However, since BDSM is openly acknowledged as "unusual" and "different," its practitioners consider frank discussion of what each partner wants out of a given session to be a sine qua non for sex in general.

These sorts of negotiations can consist of things such as defining safewords (I'll get to these in a second), discussing an activity that one partner would like to try, or discussing what is absolutely off limits without exception.

It's also important to realize that both partners take part in this conversation. The dominant partner does not simply present a list of demands to the submissive, who "must" comply. The negotiation takes place between equals -- the submissive has as much right to state categorically that there are certain activities in which s/he will not take part, and it is the dominant's responsibility to respect that.

Of course, the dominant may not choose to respect that -- but how many people in vanilla sex have gone ahead and done something to their partner over their wishes? Certainly, there are selfish people in the world of BDSM, but no more than in vanilla sex. This is nothing special to BDSM. (Far too many people, both women and men, have been hurt by the abuse of vanilla sex for that to be considered exclusively a danger in BDSM.)

After the two people (I'm assuming two partners here) have finished discussing what they want out of a given session in as much detail as they feel is necessary, a "safeword" is usually agreed upon. This consists of a word not normally used in conversation (some people use odd words like "aardvark") that the submissive can use as a signal that they wish to end the session immediately. The reason for this is that role-playing often takes a large part in BDSM, and if you are playing Amazon Warrior while your mate is playing Prisoner of War, he may wish to play at begging for mercy -- the use of a safeword insures that when "no" really means, "Stop this immediately and let me out," it will never be misinterpreted.

And again, wouldn't it be nice if all sex were expected to have that sort of safety valve?

Another safeword can sometimes be used to denote, "Hold on -- something isn't right," where the submissive wishes to back off from a certain activity but does not wish the session to end. At this point, the dominant will back off and step into negotiation mode -- ask what went wrong and what can be done to rectify it. Many partners use the word "yellow" for this, and "red" for the "stop completely" safeword.

Here is an example of the use of each safeword. If a submissive wished to try an activity that they were uncertain of (such as anal sex), they may agree to giving it a shot during negotiation. However, during the session they find that they are still too nervous to enjoy it. They do not wish to end the session altogether, but only to take a breath, step back, and tell their partner, "I thought it was a good time for this, but I'm still not quite ready. Keep going though, just don't do that." They would then use their "yellow" word to communicate this to their partner.

Suppose further that a submissive finds that the activity unnerves him to the point where he has lost interest in the scene. Or suppose more ordinarily that in the proceedings of the session, one of the other partners hurts their knee or strains their back. In any of these cases, continuing is simply not possible. The affected partner could then called their "red" safeword, thus ending the session immediately.

And again, it would be very nice if vanilla sex came with so many varied ways to say that something wasn't right? Without resentment?

Please keep in mind that I am not advocating BDSM sex activities per se, but only trying to demonstrate how the mental state of not assuming a damned thing about your partner could be a great boon in all sexual activities. I am not trying to say that practitioners of vanilla sex, happy with their lives, should begin using leather straps or handcuffs, only that perhaps if it weren't assumed that vanilla sex were something you could do without thinking, it might not be as tense as it is. You could say if something wasn't right, or make sure that your "No" wouldn't be misinterpreted as the irritating but ubiquitous "Not right yet," or "Maybe not, I'm not sure," or "Keep trying."

(Women have a hard enough time saying that they want and what they dislike regards sex -- BDSM comes with that already built-in. Okay,okay -- I said I wouldn't advocate anything . . . )

The Difference Between The Various Types

T he next question that you might be asking is, "Okay -- I understand all this stuff about safewords and discussing what you want, but what do all of the letters mean? What's bondage? What's sadism? How do they differ?"

Turns out they are very different from one another, and you will find people who will prefer one and either be disinterested in or flat-out turned off by another aspect of BDSM sexuality. I am an excellent example of this -- I like bondage fine but not sadism or masochism and am flatly turned off by pain. Others will feel differently, and still others will overlap between categories.

Bondage & Discipline:: This branch is more concerned with physical restraint and control than in setting one partner over another, even in play. In B&D, the physical control of one partner over another and the direction of action is the appeal on the part of the dominant partner. The submissive partner gets to hand over the reins and relax a bit.
Dominance & Submission:: This branch is more concerned with top/bottom roles of play ownership and sometimes pampering. Whereas a B&D dominant might want to do things to her submissive partner, the D&S dominant might demand that the partner service her.
Sadism & Masochism:: This branch is concerned with the erotic potential of intense sensation of any kind, most typically pain, though not always. Intensity is often pursued more than simple pain, but since pain can be intense, it is sometimes included. I admit to knowing the least about this branch since I am not interested in it.

It is again important to realize that these categories are by no means set in stone, and that for every person you ask, you will likely receive a different definition of each. They can overlap quite often -- if a person is interested in one activity, they may be curious about or interested in another as well, or flat-out turned off by it.

Changing Attitudes

Despite the many BDSM practitioners who have demonstrated that BDSM can be part and parcel of a healthy, self-actualized lifestyle, the National Organization of Women still insists on "officially" designating BDSM as violent and exploitative against women. A New York city chapter is looking to change this narrow, insulting, and outdated attitude. If you're interested, check out http://members.aol.com/NOWSM/Home.html for more info.

Reader's Comments

Two things regarding 'vanilla sex'. And you don't have to keep these together or anything.

One: My partner has consistently believed that a 'no' from me means 'convince me'. Now, he has a much stronger libido than I do, and is constantly frustrated by my lack of desire. While I can understand the desire ("she's my sweetheart, she loves me, why can't we just make love, I WANT TO"), to, basically, irritate me into sex even though *I* am not interested, IT DOES NOT MAKE ME LOOK FORWARD TO THE ACT. It is not cute, or endearing, or funny, to bug me all day long like a puppy trying to hump my leg! It's not a turn-on, it's a *nuisance*.

No is not an ambiguous word, dammit!

Two: During sex, we've always had a safeword - our first and middle names - in case something happens. It's easy to remember, and there are times when I get a leg cramp or I hurt his back or something. A loud painful groan can be mistaken for deep passionate groan if you're kind of busy being deep and passionate yourself. So, yes, a vanilla het couple can really find use for a safeword. If you *care* about your partner, you should talk about sex BEFORE going into the bedroom. About your likes, dislikes, and fears.

Thank you for your most interesting site.

I read your pages about BDSM, and I would like to comment.

I am a very independent woman, very aware of sexism issues and my own rights. However, I like B&D and am submissive. I could not think of being dominant in sex. And I am most definitely heterosexual.

This was very confusing to me in the beginning. I could never be dominated by any man in my everyday life, but what comes to sex I find it very exciting to be bound, spanked and teased otherwise.

The important thing would be to tell women that there is nothing wrong in this kind of a situation either. Of course it is difficult for one to understand ones need to be a dom, but even more confusing it is to find out that a modern, working, independent feminist woman needs to be dominated by a man in bed.

I am happy to live with a man who understands my need, but respects me. I hope other women like me could find their happiness as well.

If anyone here wishes to have their opinions included as participants of BDSM activity, please feel free to mail us at wwwomen@io.com with your opinions. All replies will be completely anonymized.

Please indicate explicitly whether or not you would like your comments included -- simply sending them doesn't let me know whether or not you're willing to be quoted, and given that BDSM is a bit of a sensitive topic, I will play it safe. If you would like your comments included, please state it explicitly, i.e. "Go ahead and put this on the page after anonymizing it."

Coming Soon --